Parsing Internet addiction

While I have no doubt that addiction is real, I would also like to point out the social labeling dimension of the phenomena.  In class, I used the example of the person who is consumed by the pleasure they derive from playing an instrument, writing music, etc.  I used the example of Lang Lang (check Youtube and see what an incredible virtuoso piano player he is) and Bruce S.  All six of the criteria for addiction could be applied to these guys but you'd never use the word "addiction" for it.  Obsession, maybe but not addiction.  In short, are there "good" behavioral addictions and "bad" ones? and who gets to determine which is which?  And if we adopt this "social constructionist" approach to the problem, what would be the policy implications? How about feeding a heroin addicts' addiction legally?  The person comes in every day, gets their shot, and proceeds on their way.   I don't want to downplay the suffering of the alcoholic but isn't the interesting question--who profits from alcoholism?  We wag our fingers at the behavior but are happy to see advertising on TV that makes alcohol consumption look awfully pleasureable, even if in tine print it says, "drink responsibly".  In short, maybe we shouldn't be trying to draw lines but instead look at the sociology of line drawing--who is doing it, who gets do it, what are social consequences of one line drawing vs another? 

That complex thing called privacy

Over the last two class periods, we have "complexified" the concept of privacy.  It occurs to me that a way of thinking about this is that privacy is both horizontal and vertical.  The horizontal axis is interpersonal; our concerns that others may steal our online materials, or that we might embarrass ourselves by not being private enough about our Facebook photos, etc.  However, we also saw that visibility can be importantly positive, allowing us to help others in need or discover people who are different than ourselves.  On the vertical axis, we saw that the issue is power.  Powerful forces can invade our privacy and sometimes we are fine with that--if they can find the bad guys by doing so, "I have nothing to hide" and therefore I don't care.  On the other hand, how do I know what these forces are doing with my data?   I don't know and it's hard to find out.  In other words, there is a lack of transparency; the power is assymetrical (i.e., you don't have much and corporation and government have a lot).

I was wondering what the relationship might be between the vertical and horizontal meanings of privacy.  Are they entirely separate?  Or are there elements of each dimension that help us to understand the privacy issue better?  

Privacy--the delicate balance

Cyberfriends, I've been thinking about privacy from an optimistic and pessimistic perspective.  It's easy to see the problems with maintaining privacy online--identity theft, stalking, government surveillance, loss of control over what is private and what is public.  But then there is Dana Boyd who reminds us that there are many positive virtues of visibility--discovering new friends, seeing people whose behvior is different from yours (as a way of learning), exercising compassion and empathy with those who are hurting--all of  which she outlines in her article.  So it poses the question to me: how do  you balance the dangers and postive values of visibility?  What is the line we should draw between hiding ourselves online with letting people see us?  

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but here's a link to Time magazine online with an article on online relationships and a quote from me. 


http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_2059716_2059709,00.html

Zeke Speir, social capital and the Internet as a tool for social activism

First, read "the radicalization of Zeke Speir" under course documents. Zeke (his real name) became radicalized by his experience with the police when he attempted to engage in political activism. The story here is positive and optimistic: the Internet facilitates democracy and creates new forms of social capital (defined as the degree of engagement with others to achieve social goals that add value to society). Be sure to read the counterargument, summarized on p. 103, that the Internet leads to the decline of social capital and therefore undercuts democracy. Some things to consider:

1. What does the author mean by "new forms of social capital?" What are these new forms? How do they differ from creating social capital the old fashioned way, i.e., face to face?

2. This article recounts activities from 1999-2000. What can you find out about social movements, political activism and the Internet today?

3. During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama was next the first candidate to really "get" the potential for social networks, blogs and websites and also the production of content by users for making a run for the president into a social movement. Google various Obama web sites, including "MyBarackObama.com", to see how he structured online activities to create a grassroots political movement (leave aside for the moment how you think he's doing so far as president; the focus here is on the 2008 campaign). In what sense is this different from, or similar to, the use of the Internet which got Zeke involved in that social movement (also google "zeke speir" to see what he's doing now).

4. Google "opposition to Obama" to see how the political right is using feelings about Obama to generate a right-wing social movement. Are there any differences or similarities to Speir or Obama, circa 2008?

The development of romantic relationships online

Hi Cyberfriends! By now you have received an email from me to which is attached an interview done by my research assistant, Elisa Wiherin, some years ago. The interview is of a woman who was a student at the time and agreed to share her experiences falling in love online and then what transpired in the relationship. The names of the two principals are changed but they have given me their permission to share the interview with others. I suggest that you print out the interview to work with it. Attached to that email is also a website called Cyberlove101, stories from, and interviews with, people who met and fell in love online. Story 21 is illustrative. As you'd expect, many of the stories are positive but some are not. See if you can draw people's attention to both.


Here are some questions to start you off. As usual, you answer these or create your own questions:

1. There is no doubt that Alexis falls in love online. But what does that mean? What does love mean for Alexis and what is it about the chat room environment that might facilitate this love relationship?

2. This is an example of a relationship in which the people, feeling strongly attracted to each other online, exchange pictures, phone calls and finally meet f2f. This is one end of a spectrum, the other end of which would be people who fall in love online but maint their love relationship entirely online, only relating through text. What might be the differences in "love" for this hypothetical couple as opposed to the case study examples?

3. Based on her responses, what kind of person do you think Alexis is? How might your interpretation of her as a person explain why she fell in love and how she behaved both in the lead up to the face to face meeting and during the first meeting?

4. You have spent some considerable effort thinking about the nature of personhood online. How are insights you exchanged with each other (and the reading) related to thinking about relationships?

5. What are the similarities and differences between falling in love online and falling in love offline? From the evidence in these case studies and your own experience, do you think there is little difference, some difference or a lot of difference between online and offline relationship formation and why?

Good luck; keep the conversation going!

Dr. Bob