Dear Colleagues, Thanks for the interesting posts on space. One of my concerns is the ways that the concept of Internet space often leads to the idea that there are people on the screen or inside the interface. While there are certainly people engaging through varied technologies and they are very invested in their connections, the mediated aspects of engagement and the deeply constructed interfaces and identity representations are sometimes not addressed. This mediation significantly shapes what we see and experience. With increasing computer processing speed and connectivity, ubiquitous computing, and more detailed simulations it becomes easier and we are often encouraged to forget the technologies and representations. My hope is that we can address both user interests and the ways that traditional ideas of age, class, gender, race, and sexuality (which are conveyed through visual and textual representations) are reinscribed through technologies, practices, and depictions. I know that Ulla has asked me about alternative terminology and I often try to model this in my writing. I employ such terms as "setting" instead of space. Admittedly, sometimes thinking through our ways of speaking the Internet removes further words from my vocabulary and leads to a spluttering or form of unspeaking. As I researcher, I believe that one of my responsibilities is to consider the ways that individuals view and speak about Internet settings, contemporary technologies, and other social experiences and to suggest the problems, promises, and (as Ulla prompts) the other ways that individuals and societies can represent and produce these technologies and cultural practices. I sometimes rework a vocabulary from the humanitiesparticularly film and media studies, photography theory, literary studies, and art history to write about such depictions as the rectangular or body-shaped images of synchronous graphical settings or the photo-like images of webcams. We might also look to writings about past technologies to understand our representations of the Internet. Television and other media have been understood as live, alive, and a space. Thomas Hutchinson indicated, that with television "the outside world can be brought into the home" (ix) and Charles Siepmann argued that television was a way of "'going places' without even the expenditure of movement" (340). More recently, Rhona J. Berenstein has noted that television also had the reputation of "being a medium of immediacy: an apparatus that, more than film, offers its viewers live access to the world around them and hence it was assumed, to reality " and that television resonates "in spatial terms, suggesting a physical proximity between the viewer and the performance rendered" (26). In any case, it seems to me that each vocabulary and way of understanding the Internet produces a set of cultural perceptions that shape our understanding of these technologies and social practices, what they are, and what they can be. All my best, Michele Rhona J. Berenstein, "Acting Live: TV Performance, Intimacy, and Immediacy," Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real, ed. James Friedman. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Thomas H Hutchinson, Here Is Television, Your Window on the World. New York: Hastings House, 1948. Charles Siepmann, Radio, Television, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.
What fun! As Michele knows, I'm a great admirer of her work, and I'm delighted that she has shared some of her best insights with us - both on the ethics committee (where she deserves specific credit for helping us work through some of the important differences between the methodologies and thus ethical obligations of social sciences vis-a-vis the humanities) and on this list (where, as on the ethics committee, she is raising critical challenges to the predominance of the spatial metaphors). For me, at least all of this discussion - especially Ulla's question to Michele - is helping sort out some things that until now, had remained fairly fuzzy in my mind. Let me try this out. At an epistemological level, the Kantian point regarding space and time as frameworks of our intuition - i.e., as _necessary_ conditions of our knowing something empirically - can certainly be challenged. But as Ulla makes the point - the issue is not simply to say that the spatial framework is limited (Kant himself makes this point - indeed, it's central to his epistemological and ethical programs): in addition, if one wants to argue at an epistemological level that alternative frameworks are available - then these frameworks need to be articulated. But it seems to me that most of the discussion - including Michele's points, which I think are extremely important and valuable - turn on different issues at a different level. That is - and perhaps I'm missing something - I don't see a direct challenge here to the necessity of spatial frameworks to empirical knowledge of things (the Kantian / epistemological point). I don't see an alternative epistemological framework being offered. Rather, what I see instead - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is a challenge to the ways we ordinarily "populate" our spatial frameworks. That is: part of Michele's very great contribution, in my view, is just that she challenges more specific - but still spatial - metaphors that predominate. For example, while I greatly appreciate the difference "setting" makes in how we might think about all of this - as far as I can tell, it remains a spatial metaphor - at least in the sense that Kant would have us understand spatiality - even if it's a different kind of spatial metaphor than "space" more obviously is. By the same token, the other claims that have been brought forward for discussion - most of which I agree with, FWIW - do not directly challenge the notion of space at an epistemological level: rather, they challenge specific ways of understanding spatiality - e.g., whether our mapping of spaces is a somehow neutral exercise in knowing an objective reality, and/or an exercise in power, colonization, etc. This debate is _between_ conceptions of spatiality: both presume it at an epistemological level, so far as I can see. However important such a debate may be in political, social, ethical, and other terms - either way, I again don't see a basic challenge to the Kantian epistemological claim, much less an alternative framework. Please understand that I'm not saying this in a triumphalistic tone of "aha! the old Chinese of Königsberg was right!" It's much rather intended in a more empirical tone - one including a bit of disappointment: I (and a _lot_ of other philosophers!) would be very interested and excited indeed to see empirically-oriented ways in which the Kantian epistemology might be criticized, challenged, etc. (First of all, such results would contribute critically to this debate as it plays out in both epistemology and philosophy of science, e.g., as to whether Einstein and QM mount such a challenge. Such results would be especially valuable because the debate, to my knowledge, is otherwise unresolved, with good arguments on both sides.) Again, I may be missing something here, but if I'm correct on this, then perhaps it would be useful to distinguish between these two levels of discussion - so as to clarify that the challenge is not to spatiality per se (i.e., at a fundamental epistemological level - one that appears to be much harder to undertake and achieve), but rather to specific instantiations and metaphors of spatiality, and, to return to Michele's point, the ways in which they may subtly or grossly prevent us from "seeing" other critical aspects of the phenomena we seek to study and understand. Hope this helps - and cheers! Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23
From: "Michele White" <mwhite@wellesley.edu> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:40:23 -0500 To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space)
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks for the interesting posts on space. One of my concerns is the ways that the concept of Internet space often leads to the idea that there are people on the screen or inside the interface. While there are certainly people engaging through varied technologies and they are very invested in their connections, the mediated aspects of engagement and the deeply constructed interfaces and identity representations are sometimes not addressed. This mediation significantly shapes what we see and experience. With increasing computer processing speed and connectivity, ubiquitous computing, and more detailed simulations it becomes easier and we are often encouraged to forget the technologies and representations. My hope is that we can address both user interests and the ways that traditional ideas of age, class, gender, race, and sexuality (which are conveyed through visual and textual representations) are reinscribed through technologies, practices, and depictions. I know that Ulla has asked me about alternative terminology and I often try to model this in my writing. I employ such terms as "setting" instead of space. Admittedly, sometimes thinking through our ways of speaking the Internet removes further words from my vocabulary and leads to a spluttering or form of unspeaking.
As I researcher, I believe that one of my responsibilities is to consider the ways that individuals view and speak about Internet settings, contemporary technologies, and other social experiences and to suggest the problems, promises, and (as Ulla prompts) the other ways that individuals and societies can represent and produce these technologies and cultural practices. I sometimes rework a vocabulary from the humanitiesparticularly film and media studies, photography theory, literary studies, and art history to write about such depictions as the rectangular or body-shaped images of synchronous graphical settings or the photo-like images of webcams.
We might also look to writings about past technologies to understand our representations of the Internet. Television and other media have been understood as live, alive, and a space. Thomas Hutchinson indicated, that with television "the outside world can be brought into the home" (ix) and Charles Siepmann argued that television was a way of "'going places' without even the expenditure of movement" (340). More recently, Rhona J. Berenstein has noted that television also had the reputation of "being a medium of immediacy: an apparatus that, more than film, offers its viewers live access to the world around them and hence it was assumed, to reality " and that television resonates "in spatial terms, suggesting a physical proximity between the viewer and the performance rendered" (26).
In any case, it seems to me that each vocabulary and way of understanding the Internet produces a set of cultural perceptions that shape our understanding of these technologies and social practices, what they are, and what they can be.
All my best, Michele
Rhona J. Berenstein, "Acting Live: TV Performance, Intimacy, and Immediacy," Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real, ed. James Friedman. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002.
Thomas H Hutchinson, Here Is Television, Your Window on the World. New York: Hastings House, 1948.
Charles Siepmann, Radio, Television, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
this discussion becomes ever more interesting.... I was esp. intrigued by Charles# and Michelle's postings.. which got me to think on the notion of space and spatiality as it seemed to have been used throughout the debate... and I might have missed something...so be kind.. space and spatiality were/are discussed with reference to physical space.. the 'real', embodiement.. Michelle's setting tried to get away from it and indeed I think this is a good idea.. studies in urban sociology and the sociology of space have indeed discussed a dichotomy which might be helpful for us... The two arguments or lines of thought can be divided into approaches that see a. space as a container7absolute space ->eucliadian space where action in these spaces does not affect the spatial construction, look or make-up b. relational space -> space is formed by action, experiences and changes spaces on a constant basis. Furthermore a person can inhabit different spaces at a time, because the concept is context driven. REbecca bryant - I cited her work earlier - argues for a. in the case of Cyberspace, as she sees the computers and cables as the container. I disagree with that, but have also difficulties with point b. Looking for a term to describe the "space" we are talking about is difficult, as we want to make a statement and localize people and the communication between them somewhere. Setting would be a start to get away from it... Sphere of experience another... Gibson calls it "hallucination" , which has more to do with the cognitive aspects then with the "locus". I also find it hard to talk about on/offline.. and think about something that can describe the "continuum of experience" of communication and actions and hence social relations better... social relations do not have to be space bound, but create a whole, whichmay constitute space, not necessarily physical in nature... I hope I still make sense and have not lost all of you by now.. before I do I leave at that and wait for your comments.. bes t nilz -- Dr. Nils Zurawski Universität Hamburg Inst. für kriminologische Sozialforschung Allendeplatz 1 20146 Hamburg Germany tel. +49 (0) 40 42838 6185 fax. +49 (0) 40 42838 2328 Projekt zu Videoüberwachung: http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/zurawski/ueberwachung
Hello friends, I think Charles's summing up the exchange is very useful. I only disagree with the final conclusion. There is a good deal of literature that challenges the Kantian tradition. Much of it, however, is from the Marxist, phenomenological, or postsructural perspective. For my money, the most useful articulation of space is in Merleau-Ponty's _Phenomenology of Perception_. In this piece he explicates space as a type of "depth" dependent on our connections to each other (as opposed to our distances from each other). Under this conception, the internet is a real space but it has a specific material manifestation in the ways that it connects us. This has been extremely fruitful in my work because it then allows one to interrogate what exactly are these connections? What type of communications do they allow for? Do the promote weak or strong ties (please note, this is not equivalent to determining)? What types of "noises" are prevalent? How can we design more social equitable spaces? Other thinkers that have been very useful in thinking about space: LeFebvre is useful for thinking about how social spaces are created. De Certeau is useful for thinking about how individuals navigate spaces. Elizabeth Grosz's work has been useful for thinking about space in relationship to embodiment. Alphonso Lingis's "Introduction" to Merleau-Ponty's _Visible and Invisible_ is very useful as well. A good introduction to different ways to thinking about space can be found in Crang and Thrifts _Thinking About Space_. Also, I would like to plug Rob Shield's work in this area. He wrote one of the best secondary works on Lefebvre and now edits the journal _Space and Culture_. Yours because the internet is a space- Phillip Phillip Thurtle http://www.carleton.ca/~pthurtle/
Hi all: I also write about issues of space but, alas, have no time to add much beyond names to Phillip's list: Michel Foucault on the heterotopia, specifically, (1986). Of other spaces. diacritics, 16(1), 22-27. Kevin Hetherington's work on the heterotopia, although not about cyberspace, is useful as well: (1997). The badlands of modernity: Heterotopia and social ordering. New York: Routledge. Finally, Doreen Massey for a feminist perspective: (1994). Space, place, and gender. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rhiannon
Seems to me that the usefulness of the space metaphor depends a lot on what aspect of the internet you're talking about. If you're looking at Everquest, for example. it doesn't seem to make much sense to exclude the concept of space since the program is designed to simulate spaces. On the other hand, if you're studying personal communication in relationships as I have been, the concept of "cyberspace" doesn't make much sense (e.g. in my interviews people talk about using IM to contact a roomate in the same building -- sometimes even the same room). Space, however, remains critically important to understanding how and why people use the internet in personal relationships -- long distance relationships use email and IM much more than local ones, and norms about when internet use is and isn't appropriate in personal relationships depend a lot on geographical proximity. Those norms seem to be very much in flex as there is tremendous variation amongst people regarding the appropriateness of online communication with local partners. The problem I have had with the 'cyberspace' metaphor is that it too often led to an assumption that we are dealing with different worlds -- the "real" one vs. and the "cyber" one. As the last decade of internet research has demonstrated clearly, this is a false dichotomy for many many reasons (not least of which is the fact that most online communication occurs between people who also communicate face to face at times). It is great to see this list so actively engaged in stimulating discussion. Nancy
Sorry if I missed this in the volume of fascinating debate - but I wonder about the space-time relationship of the internet-based interactions factors into the construction of the special metaphors we so easily use. That is, while email is an asynchronous form of communication and IM is a synchronous one - one can have conversations using either in which case the time between messages stands in some relation to the physical distance (if known) between the individuals / group. Similarly does one 'feel' closer (possibly turning the received metaphor into sensational expression) to a web site or interface that is more responsive? To have a go at casting this in ANT terms, the temporal characteristics of the software artefacts we are using must contribute some how to the way that these metaphors are constructed and maintained. Ren www.renreyolds.com terranova.blogs.com ...still trying to work out how all this stands in relation to Kant's ideas of the necessary nature space(ness) in his Epistemology and would welcome more posts following up Charles's fascinating thoughts on the matter - if you have the urge you have a reader :) -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: 04 February 2004 14:27 To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space) What fun! As Michele knows, I'm a great admirer of her work, and I'm delighted that she has shared some of her best insights with us - both on the ethics committee (where she deserves specific credit for helping us work through some of the important differences between the methodologies and thus ethical obligations of social sciences vis-a-vis the humanities) and on this list (where, as on the ethics committee, she is raising critical challenges to the predominance of the spatial metaphors). For me, at least all of this discussion - especially Ulla's question to Michele - is helping sort out some things that until now, had remained fairly fuzzy in my mind. Let me try this out. At an epistemological level, the Kantian point regarding space and time as frameworks of our intuition - i.e., as _necessary_ conditions of our knowing something empirically - can certainly be challenged. But as Ulla makes the point - the issue is not simply to say that the spatial framework is limited (Kant himself makes this point - indeed, it's central to his epistemological and ethical programs): in addition, if one wants to argue at an epistemological level that alternative frameworks are available - then these frameworks need to be articulated. But it seems to me that most of the discussion - including Michele's points, which I think are extremely important and valuable - turn on different issues at a different level. That is - and perhaps I'm missing something - I don't see a direct challenge here to the necessity of spatial frameworks to empirical knowledge of things (the Kantian / epistemological point). I don't see an alternative epistemological framework being offered. Rather, what I see instead - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is a challenge to the ways we ordinarily "populate" our spatial frameworks. That is: part of Michele's very great contribution, in my view, is just that she challenges more specific - but still spatial - metaphors that predominate. For example, while I greatly appreciate the difference "setting" makes in how we might think about all of this - as far as I can tell, it remains a spatial metaphor - at least in the sense that Kant would have us understand spatiality - even if it's a different kind of spatial metaphor than "space" more obviously is. By the same token, the other claims that have been brought forward for discussion - most of which I agree with, FWIW - do not directly challenge the notion of space at an epistemological level: rather, they challenge specific ways of understanding spatiality - e.g., whether our mapping of spaces is a somehow neutral exercise in knowing an objective reality, and/or an exercise in power, colonization, etc. This debate is _between_ conceptions of spatiality: both presume it at an epistemological level, so far as I can see. However important such a debate may be in political, social, ethical, and other terms - either way, I again don't see a basic challenge to the Kantian epistemological claim, much less an alternative framework. Please understand that I'm not saying this in a triumphalistic tone of "aha! the old Chinese of Königsberg was right!" It's much rather intended in a more empirical tone - one including a bit of disappointment: I (and a _lot_ of other philosophers!) would be very interested and excited indeed to see empirically-oriented ways in which the Kantian epistemology might be criticized, challenged, etc. (First of all, such results would contribute critically to this debate as it plays out in both epistemology and philosophy of science, e.g., as to whether Einstein and QM mount such a challenge. Such results would be especially valuable because the debate, to my knowledge, is otherwise unresolved, with good arguments on both sides.) Again, I may be missing something here, but if I'm correct on this, then perhaps it would be useful to distinguish between these two levels of discussion - so as to clarify that the challenge is not to spatiality per se (i.e., at a fundamental epistemological level - one that appears to be much harder to undertake and achieve), but rather to specific instantiations and metaphors of spatiality, and, to return to Michele's point, the ways in which they may subtly or grossly prevent us from "seeing" other critical aspects of the phenomena we seek to study and understand. Hope this helps - and cheers! Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23
From: "Michele White" <mwhite@wellesley.edu> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:40:23 -0500 To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet Without Space)
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks for the interesting posts on space. One of my concerns is the ways that the concept of Internet space often leads to the idea that there are people on the screen or inside the interface. While there are certainly people engaging through varied technologies and they are very invested in their connections, the mediated aspects of engagement and the deeply constructed interfaces and identity representations are sometimes not addressed. This mediation significantly shapes what we see and experience. With increasing computer processing speed and connectivity, ubiquitous computing, and more detailed simulations it becomes easier and we are often encouraged to forget the technologies and representations. My hope is that we can address both user interests and the ways that traditional ideas of age, class, gender, race, and sexuality (which are conveyed through visual and textual representations) are reinscribed through technologies, practices, and depictions. I know that Ulla has asked me about alternative terminology and I often try to model this in my writing. I employ such terms as "setting" instead of space. Admittedly, sometimes thinking through our ways of speaking the Internet removes further words from my vocabulary and leads to a spluttering or form of unspeaking.
As I researcher, I believe that one of my responsibilities is to consider the ways that individuals view and speak about Internet settings, contemporary technologies, and other social experiences and to suggest the problems, promises, and (as Ulla prompts) the other ways that individuals and societies can represent and produce these technologies and cultural practices. I sometimes rework a vocabulary from the humanitiesparticularly film and media studies, photography theory, literary studies, and art history to write about such depictions as the rectangular or body-shaped images of synchronous graphical settings or the photo-like images of webcams.
We might also look to writings about past technologies to understand our representations of the Internet. Television and other media have been understood as live, alive, and a space. Thomas Hutchinson indicated, that with television "the outside world can be brought into the home" (ix) and Charles Siepmann argued that television was a way of "'going places' without even the expenditure of movement" (340). More recently, Rhona J. Berenstein has noted that television also had the reputation of "being a medium of immediacy: an apparatus that, more than film, offers its viewers live access to the world around them and hence it was assumed, to reality " and that television resonates "in spatial terms, suggesting a physical proximity between the viewer and the performance rendered" (26).
In any case, it seems to me that each vocabulary and way of understanding the Internet produces a set of cultural perceptions that shape our understanding of these technologies and social practices, what they are, and what they can be.
All my best, Michele
Rhona J. Berenstein, "Acting Live: TV Performance, Intimacy, and Immediacy," Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real, ed. James Friedman. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002.
Thomas H Hutchinson, Here Is Television, Your Window on the World. New York: Hastings House, 1948.
Charles Siepmann, Radio, Television, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Thought some of the people on the list would be interested in the following: I play a trading card game based on the lord of the rings franchise. The company that produces this game has a set of web-based message boards which are actively monitored and controlled by the company. One of the most active posters, who is seen by many as one of the major contributors to the online community of game players was recently banned. He had a friend posting an explanation for his disappearance, which had some replies regretting it, until the thread was locked by the board monitors. The thread can be found below: http://forums.fanhq.com/viewtopic.php?t=26316 He started an online petition to unban him: http://www.petitiononline.com/kertrats/petition.html Hopefully this will be interesting for those looking at on-line communities. -Joao
participants (8)
-
Charles Ess -
Joao Cunha -
Michele White -
Nancy Baym -
Nils Zurawski -
Phillip Thurtle -
Ren Reynolds -
Rhiannon Bury