Constant reader may remember that the extraordinary David Weinberger and I have a running disagreement about spatial metaphors for online communication (loads of other people regularly join in — Tom, for instance, and dozens of other people linked from this hub). David argues that although the Web isn’t spatial, we appropriately conceptualize it as “place-ial.” I riposte that although we have become accustomed to spatial metaphors for online communication, these metaphors occlude some of the most exciting and unfamiliar aspects of the Web, so that we risk circumscribing our online interactions to those that most closely fit the familiar spatial/place-ial metaphors with which we characterize our activities (and defer, or perhaps lose, the opportunity to allow the Web to surprise us). Now, thanks to Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing, I’ll be able to cite an academic paper in support of my side.
As David Gold says, “We don't know yet what we can do in cyberspace,” especially (I Add) if we already know it’s “space.” (Link via wood s lot —thanks!)
Now I just have to get a copy of the article itself; I can’t read it online because the argument lies on the other side of an intellectual-property barricade. What this means, in effect, is that in order (ostensibly) to protect the author’s copyright, I will be made to pay a toll not to the author, but to Xerox or Toshiba or some other photocopier manufacturer.
Posted by AKMA at May 13, 2003 10:53 AM | TrackBackAKMA - I'll admit to not having read *every* word of this ongoing discussion, but I feel comfortable enough (?!) to ask if we might not use the Internet (and cyberspace) to reconceptualise or reconfigure our very definitions and understandings of space and place, rather than abandon them as useful concepts?
As the article you cite alludes to, metaphors are never neutral - and if you do manage to track down a copy, I'd be interested to know if the author is able to provide "better" metaphors. After all, the abstract focusses on the "commons" - itself a rather delimiting metaphor.
Posted by: Anne at May 13, 2003 01:33 PMAKMA, you said, "...these metaphors occlude some of the most exciting and unfamiliar aspects of the Web, so that we risk circumscribing our... interactions to those that most closely fit the familiar spatial/place-ial metaphors with which we characterize our activities (and defer, or perhaps lose, the opportunity to allow the Web to surprise us."
Take out "the Web," and put in "God," and you have some decent theology. Ever think of trying a gig as a seminary prof?
Posted by: Jane Ellen at May 13, 2003 05:41 PMI'll pick up on the theological metaphor in support of my footnote to the footnote: if some of us still only see the Internet "through a glass darkly," well, Christ taught through parables for precisely that reason: not because the teeny-bopper on Blogspot could never ascend to the speculative heights achieved by the digerati, but so that that predigital playing field could be levelled. (If I can mix a metaphor and mate two thats.)
I think that Denim is a nice example of this:
Spatial metaphor is a parable of what the Web is, and essential to its inclusiveness. And boy, do we have a lot of people left to include.
Posted by: c. brayton at May 13, 2003 09:09 PMThere is an accessible pdf of Dan Hunter's fine paper here -
http://www.smu.edu.sg/research/pdfs/DHunter_Cyberspace.pdf
Love the new logo btw.
Posted by: mark at May 14, 2003 12:07 AM