I made the point today that we are embodied on the internet. I hadn’t planned to discuss this, so my response was a bit scattered (stream of consciousness, heh). Let me try to make it a bit clearer:
We are embodied on the internet. Technology doesn’t simply extend our capacities, but it also changes the kinds of environments in which we act. This in turn changes the kinds of actions that are required for engaging in those environments. Sometimes this results in actions that are very different from the kinds of behaviors we make while engaging nature, but that doesn’t make them any less engaged actions.
It is harder for Dreyfus to make his arguments about technology stick now days, because the technology we use today is literally engaging our bodies in ways it never could before. Take a look at any video on YouTube that shows people using the Wii. These people are clearly engaged with their whole bodies.
But there is a sense in which the Wii example is too easy and superficial. I think it is better to think of the skill required to navigate any complicated website or program. Think about people who use Photoshop, or Final Cut, or any other big, complicated program. It is impossible to doubt that there is a learned skill involved in using this kind of software. It is something that requires practice and training; its the kind of thing that some people are better at than others. But Dreyfus’ argument is that skills are acquired through the use of the body. If he’s right, then we must be embodied when we are using these programs.
Or think about all the social rules and norms involved in interacting with any online community- your favorite message boards; Facebook; MySpace; Wikipedia; this blog. These are all very complicated social environments. We all have some sense of what is appropriate for these environments, and what is inappropriate, and how to behave. Some people do it better than others. MySpace is full of social cues- music, backgrounds, images, links, friends, etc. MySpace is just like a fashion accessory to your online identity.
If these places on the Internet are really environments that take skill to navigate, then you must conclude that we are embodied on the internet. If that’s the case, then the Internet doesn’t pose a threat to our humanity. At most it poses a threat to our current understanding of ourselves and our environment, because in a real sense it changes what we are, and what we interact with. But that doesn’t undermine our humanity; it reaffirms it.
Facebook and MySpace users aren’t examples of people who despise the body, or who think that the body is obsolete. They are people who desperately want to integrate these new possibilities and forms of expression into their lives. They are people who want to make their online identity real and meaningful and relevant. They are people who are trying to find a stable social environment, not just as an abstract mind or identity, but as a real person.
Charlotte Miles | 07-Dec-06 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
While you were talking about this in class today, I was thinking about something Clark has said, \”Cyberspace is just one more place to be\” (pg. 8 ). Being on the internet is just antoher place for the mind to be. We are engrosed with the screen and the images and our thoughts almost as much as if we were seeing something in real life. We might not be able to touch objects, but in the idea of talking to someone of finding information is the same. Today I was going to comment on how if me and friends don\’t know something, we just say \”google it\” and we look it up online. What is the difference as opening a book and flipping through pages. We are still searching for information and learning the same amount as any paper dictionary or encyclopedia could tell us.
Jeff Chwa | 07-Dec-06 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
I would strongly agree with Daniel when he said that we are embodied on the internet because these cyber-communities are just like another life for people. They dedicate a good amount of time each day to check facebook and myspace to see if they got any messages. It is essentially another life. I think another great example would be the game World of Warcraft, in which people assume identities and interact with each other like they would in real life. Even though it is just a game, people become consumed in it spending a lot of time online. To these people this would be a socially stable environment where they can be comfortable.
Miguel Guzman | 07-Dec-06 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
I totally agree that we are embodied with the internet. I have to agree that we can’t live without being online. As soon as we get in front of a computer the first thing we do is check our myspace, facebook and e-mail, also we communicate with friends through aim or yahoo messenger. People even purchase phones like the sidekicks to spend more time doing this kind of stuff.
Lindsey Schwartz | 07-Dec-06 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
I agree that we are embodied on the internet. Interactions may be different and some people see them as less or more meaningful, but we’re still taking part of it. But I don’t agree with Miguel, that we can’t live without being online. We might fail a class or be hard to reach but it won’t kill us. I definitely think we can live without the internet but it would be very difficult, since it is such a huge part of our lives.
Kevin K. Hong | 07-Dec-06 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
Yes, we can be embodied on the internet, either through some sort of role playing game, messenger service, or even an online social community. These services provide us with an easier way to socialize with our friends and even meet new people. Each one of us has an online identity, as well as an online life to go with it. Is it safe to be living dual lives at the same time? While not a problem for all people, this second alternate life has taken some of my friends from my first life away from me. I won’t use names (to protect the innocent), but certain people that I know seem to have alienated themselves from social contact in this reality. When I want to contact them, I have assume my online identity in order to communicate with them. These types of technologies have no doubt given us another tool to use, but for some people, managing two lives is too much, and the risk cannot be overlooked.
Kenneth Sullivan | 07-Dec-06 at 11:21 pm | Permalink
I do not think that we are living dual lives as Kevin said. If there is information on your online profile that does not reflect who you truly are, then you…Secondly, AOL instant messaging has been around since before people my age had cell phones (I hope no one had a cell phone in 4th grade) so if your friends seem to be embodying this online life, maybe it is something that you should embody as well. We were probably talking to our friends online before we were calling them on their cell phones. I only use AIM to talk to one friend who does not have a cell phone and that seems to work for the time being whenever I want to get a hold of him. What really interests me though is observing the different generation’s reactions to this e-communications world. Obviously our parents are not nearly as adequate with technology as us. My father puts on his glasses every time he answers his cell phone whereas I know the exact location of my send button. It will be very interesting to see the generation growing up now where kids in 6th grade already have cell phones. They seem to take every bit of technology in stride becuase they never knew any different.