I would expect that to have grown up immersed in a technology, rather than constantly working to integrate it, has a great effect on how one then views that technology's relationship to one's daily life and how one compares social interaction with/through it to other forms of interaction.
This is clearly why there is such an immense focus on teens and technology: to study how technologically mediated interaction is part and parcel of their social lives. Different qualitative studies seem to show a few of the same tendencies, as do my own study of 20 Norwegian teenagers between 15 and 18 (all avid users of various personal media such as IM, IRC [yes, still], blogs/LiveJournal, mobile phones): 1) online communication is hardly seen as a substitute for face-to-face interaction but rather as a supplement. 2) face-to-face interaction is still valued as more authentic (my informants' choice of concept). 3) Consequently youth do have a sense of stigma around online socializing in cases where online communication supplants face-to-face interaction. At least this is how I interpret my informants when they talk about all the benefits of using personal media (e.g. easier to admit things and be open, and the flexibility of online socializing), yet still emphasize that face-to-face interaction is their preferred mode of socializing. None of my informants see their own use of personal media as embarrassing or problematic, but believe that their online and mediated activities supplement their offline social lives (and are furhtermore beneficial for their offline social lives). I think it is essential to remember that the history of personal media did not start with computer-mediated communication. Avid users of the telephone were hardly stigmatized, were they? Women chatting on the telephone were at least perceived as anything but anti-social (and how interesting to compare this image of "chatty women" with the contemplating and virtuous act of writing letters). Thankfully, online communication is generally no longer labeled as being anti-social, and the nuances and differences between forms of mediated interaction are acknowledged. Marika
I think it is essential to remember that the history of personal media did not start with computer-mediated communication. Avid users of the telephone were hardly stigmatized, were they? Women chatting on the telephone were at least perceived as anything but anti-social
... My understanding is that there were actually a lot of concerns that women chattering on the telephone would lead to lesser participation in their communities/nation/etc. and that in fact the social use of the telephone was seen as a threat at the time. danah's point about reading is a good one too. Certainly there were moral panics of sorts surrounding women's reading novels in the 19th century. Nancy
...regarding women on the telephone in the early days of diffusion, Claude Fischer (1992, America Calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940) makes the case that women were often using the telephone to *overcome the isolation* that was part of the context of being home during the day and not close enough physically to friends or kin to visit them in person. Thus, the telephone more often served to keep women socially connected and involved in their community (between face-to-face visits and meetings) rather than to diminish their participation in community. At 10:23 AM 3/1/2006, you wrote:
I think it is essential to remember that the history of personal media did not start with computer-mediated communication. Avid users of the telephone were hardly stigmatized, were they? Women chatting on the telephone were at least perceived as anything but anti-social
...
My understanding is that there were actually a lot of concerns that women chattering on the telephone would lead to lesser participation in their communities/nation/etc. and that in fact the social use of the telephone was seen as a threat at the time.
danah's point about reading is a good one too. Certainly there were moral panics of sorts surrounding women's reading novels in the 19th century.
Nancy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think it is essential to remember that the history of personal media did not start with computer-mediated communication. Avid users of the telephone were hardly stigmatized, were they? Women chatting on the telephone were at least perceived as anything but anti-social
...
My understanding is that there were actually a lot of concerns that women chattering on the telephone would lead to lesser participation in their communities/nation/etc. and that in fact the social use of the telephone was seen as a threat at the time.
yes, very much so. Check out for instance: Lasen, A. (2005). History repeating? A comparison of the launch and uses of fixed and mobile phones. In L. Hamill & A. Lasen (Eds.), Mobile World. Past, Present and Future (pp. 29-60). Springer. At the time of fixed phone invention (1880-1920) many disadvantages of the telephone were discussed. They do resemble very much recent concerns regarding computer-mediated communication or mobile communication (neglect of f2f communication, addiction, sexual solicitation / obscene contacts, crime, stress etc.). Nicola. -- http://www.nicola-doering.de/
participants (4)
-
Andrea Kavanaugh -
Marika Lüders -
Nancy Baym -
Nicola Doering