Well I blogged about “replacement panic” at just the same time Halley wrote up a wonderful related post over at misbehaving.net. Time to join the conversation over there, I suppose. In answer to Dave (I’m not sure whether it was Dave ”C & E,” “I used to be a blogger” Rogers, or Dave “Times Shadow” Rogers, who has hung up his blog-pen for now) Rogers: by “tenor” of our interactions, I mean the felt character of those interactions, the texture of them. By the possessive pronoun “our,” I meant “we, the people who talk about things like online interactions, their perils and benefits” (thanks for calling me on that!). The universe of interactions my “all” encompassed included at least “all the interactions among us, and probably all our other interactions as well.” The “shift”to which I advert involves an alteration in interactions that accompanies the addition of a quality of relatedness (the online aspect) that is always in play, whether actively or not. It’s already affecting our interactions, and will continue to affect them to an increasing extent, whether obviously or subtly. Same shift, but with different textures of apparent-ness, and probably with changing characteristics (then in what sense is it “the same”? Good question. It’s “the same” insofar as it was precipitated by the amplification of the extent to which we interact digitally, I think). Yes indeed, I would always expect people to have mixed degrees of exhilaration and apprehension about modulating into a more-comprehensively digital mode of interaction. Whew!
And Dorothea, I’m no one to comment on Martin Buber either.
And Peter, you’e quite right — and children today (in my experience) do tend to know less about calculating, most people telephone more often than visit (except at my office), watch TV more than read or play outside. None of these activities has ceased, though; we’ve adjusted to a different balance, and part of that adjustment may involve resistance to the change (our family doesn’t watch TV, for instance, and reads more, although the younger generation isn’t much on calculating). That’s why I use both words in “replacement panic”: “eplacement,“ because of the misplaced fear that physical interaction will disappear, and “panic” because it involves a loss of the historical perspective you so helpfully provide.
With regard to my cry for help, I haven’t followed up the second round of J.P. and Wes’s advice, since Margaret’s iBook came back yesterday. I do want to get that Lombard wireless-ed, though, since (a) I bought the card, and (b) it would be a lot more useful if it were functional as a wireless outpost than it is as a decorative motif sitting on the cassette player.
Posted by AKMA at December 24, 2003 10:22 AM | TrackBackWhen I first experienced the internet, and saw chat rooms on AOL, I was terribly disappointed at the cutesy code-like, emoticon filled short hand communications that took place, often over something as mundane (but important) as gardening. "What will happen to written language," I worried.
Since then, I've become quite impressed at the wide range of writing (mostly in complete sentences) about all kinds of things, made possible by this wonderful medium.
But I doubt if this current mini-golden age of personal writing will last. Right now, we are a bunch of independent publishers, but it won't be long before we will become independent televison producers, or radio producers, putting out voices and pictures.
I suppose I could become a bit nervous about that.
And on that note, all best to you and your family tonight as we celebrate together in parishes around the world our hope and faith.
Posted by: Don at December 24, 2003 02:24 PMI've just appended my views to Halley's post, AKMA. Many of them were informed or shaped by agreement with some of your feelings expressed well over a year ago.
Don, my difficulty isn't so much with the disappearance of blogging as a form of communication of relationship mediation; it has more to do with making the most now of relationships formed in the past or taking shape at the moment. I find relationships and communication intimate and immediate. I agree that those with the wherewithal will most likely become the equivalent of independent multi-media producers. More, established business interests will probably destroy much of the good we now have. I believe the 'independents' and I will cross that bridge when we come to it.
The tough part is juggling myriad relationships in technologically different and similar areas of our lives. We know and meet so many more people of value to us, and taking care of those as well as core relationships is very much a 'happening' or 'now' thing. It ain't easy, especially when valued relationships threaten each other. The challenge is to become better at handling relationships in all areas so that they retain their depth, quality, value and lifespan.
It's Christmas over here. To both of you, to Margaret and the kids, have a wonderful, blessed Christmas and, yeah, keep on asking those questions. They matter :).
Posted by: Mike Golby at December 24, 2003 05:42 PMThis is Dave Times Shadow Rogers.
Thanks for clarifying a bit, AKMA.
Here are a few more thoughts: The vast majority of the world's people are not relating virtually or digitally, and it's likely to remain that way for quite some time to come. "All" and "our" must therefore only relate to a small percentage of "us." Even of those who are online, not all choose to interact through the medium. Some choose to merely "lurk."
Now, having said that, I think you're largely right AKMA, but I've never encountered anyone who expressly exhibited the "replacement panic" you're debunking. I have encountered, from time to time, people who have expressed more specific concerns about the nature of digital or virtual interactions, and I have reservations of my own.
As you wrote: "So, for example, we usually do want other people to be part of our lives in physical ways." This is especially true for sexual predators, who have learned how to exploit this digital or virtual medium to approach and get "close" to their victims in ways that largely defeat the conventional, and usually inadequate, defenses that we rely on to protect those we love from such individuals. Though I hasten to add, we have always had sexual predators among us.
And as we learned from Kaycee Nicole, on the internet nobody knows you're not a teenage leukemia sufferer. Not that we haven't had frauds like this in "meatspace" for all our history.
Of course, we've all become acquainted with the spouses of deceased former government officials of various African nations who have learned of our good character from close friends and who wish to enlist our aid in safely moving vast sums of money from the clutches of corrupt current government officials. Not that we haven't had confidence men in the real world for all of our history as well.
I could go on, but I trust you get my point.
While I won't confess to a form of anxiety like "replacement panic," I do have a certain anxiety about a networked world. High bandwidth communications networks reduce friction for everybody, the good and the bad. The "good" seem to be entirely too trusting and tend to promote and embrace all the wonderful good things, while perhaps neglecting the potential for bad things.
I would say the sanest approach would be for one to be both exhilarated and unnerved; and I'd always recommend a robust sense skepticism regarding the claims for all the "good" that new technologies will accommodate.
Posted by: dave rogers at December 24, 2003 10:57 PM