The Blogging Communities as a Democracy affecting Democracy

The internet has allowed for sociopolitical communication and reflective propositions on a tremendous scale. People have been able to form online communities to discuss politics in real time. There are various websites that portray different elements of society and politics as well as illuminating a certain tone or overall theme within the community. It is ironic in form because these online communities are in form the literal definition of democracy as to where it is the rule of the people for the people. It is the members of these online communities that regulate and add to the ideals of their community. Moreover, web logging communities have minimized the normal media effects of political positioning and allowed for; individual and group reflections and feedback from an array of others on certain sociopolitical issues. Governmental affairs are highly discussed in web logging communities, because it is an intangible place where the individual feels that their voice will be heard. Evidently, their voices are heard indefinitely especially within their local and online communities. Noting that these communities are not only plentiful and adverse, as well as significant to politics, Alinta Thornton states in her essay, “How are Blogs affecting local politics?”

The internet will contribute to, or even be primarily responsible for, a new era of participatory democracy and a revitalization of the public sphere.

Apparently, Thornton holds a legitimate argument. The revitalization of the public sphere is concurrent in metaphorical or analogous participatory democracies such as web logs. There is a wide array of these sites with countless opinions and reflections on democracy. A site where there is an enormous amount of informative contribution is the website Democratic Conversation: Skepticism is a virtue located at http://www.democratic-conversation.com. Mark Beyer is a citizen logged on this site that has strong political beliefs and reflects upon the upcoming presidential primary in his article written on June 28, 2007, “Who’s Next?” His article is very intelligent, cynical, and illuminates a skeptical yet liberal tone. In analysis to this representation, Beyer states:

I am an artist by temperament and intellect; I look for insight in the beauty and the grotesque as beauty as ways to explore, help define, and enjoy the human comedy. This is not so difficult, as I need only look around with ears, if not eyes, open to the environment. I came to political inspection and commentary as a by-product of my literary artistic inquiry. Again, one only need read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Wharton, and Sun-Tsu to grasp the significance that art can have upon a people caught in desperate struggle with authority (as well as themselves). Also, I believe in democratic principles such as discussion, dissent, and freedom of speech.

With articles that reflect such opinions about politics, one can be lead to believe that blogs are affecting local politics. Considering the fact that a local New Yorker has the ability to express his political views within the realm of the internet in co-ordinance with many others who not only express their views but also reflect upon others, the web log has definitely shaped a democratic influence. Thornton reiterates this point when stating:

The American approach to communications research informs much of the debate and policy making surrounding the Internet. This makes an understanding of the themes in this line of theory important to any discussion of Internet as a public sphere.

Conclusively, with the amount of political census data available via data mining technologies and information aggregation, politics are substantially affected by web logs and their affiliates. The needs of the people are heard and noted and it has allowed for the increase of power in numbers. Accordingly, the government must adapt to these technologies, information, and societal needs and opinions to better suit the majority. In turn, the blog is affecting technology.

Can you see me smiling at you?

The internet has quite possibly been the greatest invention of all time. It allows for people to communicate far beyond the capabilities of prior mass communication technology. On the other hand, the internet has allowed for the increase of communication, but researchers argue that it has limited, altered, and confined the realm of a social community. According to Jay Fernback and Brad Thompson authors of Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?

“The notion of community has been long recognized as having a central place in our social fabric. But it was T”nnies (1988/1887) who, by distinguishing between community and society (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft), placed this enduring aspect of social relationships in the context of modernity and the concomitant degeneration of traditional social structures.”

What used to be a physical or a location community has now morphed into an online virtual community. The concept of progressive diminishment of location communities is highly relative to my own life; as to where I am on the fringe of constant communication in location communities and/or also in certain online communities. The realm of these communities has determined the relational ties that I hold now and how I build or retract upon them. An online community that I am socially tied to is Facebook. Facebook is an online community of personal weblogs, where there is constant computer-mediated-communication occurring.

I feel that this metaphorical fringe of changing communities is an indirect result of post industrialization and the increasing individualistic nature the American society upholds. When communities were more location oriented there was a higher sense of collectivism in society, where people would interact with each other in a face-to-face manner and look out for the benefits for the community as a whole. “Because of our credo of rugged individualism, America is more vulnerable than other cultures to regard social intercourse in terms of personal feelings rather than in rational or objective terms. Thus, our community, our shared sense of collective self, fails to embrace the public and instead becomes enmeshed in the cult of personality this is the manner in which social phenomena are translated into meaningful interpretations.” Due to this social stigma of the integration of CMC, the online community has become a social norm as well as an accepted form of creating and obtaining social ties. This has changed the form and functions of communication amongst social communities. Jay Fernback and Brad Thompson articulate this point stating in Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?

“The online world of computer- mediated communication (CMC) is one of those new ways for humans to relate to one another, and it is growing rapidly.”

The social network of Facebook is a highly interactive online community and also one of the largest in the virtual world. I am a current member of this community because it helps expand and improve upon my social ties. I am not a firm believer that this is the correct approach to communicating interpersonally, but it is highly accepted within my culture and refusal of my participation would result in lack of communication causing me to become a member of the out-group. I find Facebook to be quite contradictory to the actual elements of our so called location community. Most of the interaction that occurs on Facebook is between members of the location society that we already belong to. It allows for an array of person-to-person, person-to-many, as well as many-to-many communication. An individual can write a personal message to someone or they could write on their “wall” to show other people within their social network what message is being exchanged. There are various forms of information accessible to a person’s identity on Facebook. There is information supplied in a personal profile in which anyone in the community can access. Also, there is a forum called “news feed” that allows for anyone within the social community to view almost any form of CMC that is occurring in the community. What I find to be interesting about this is that the communication that occurs between people, as well as people’s identities is entirely different than in the location community. For instance, we all communicate with the same people whether it is computer-mediated or not. The difference is that people are able to communicate with a lot more people faster on the internet than in person. It also allows for people to communicate with many others and for 3^rd party commentary on supplied information. This in form helps to increase and maintain social ties by constant communication as well as entailing the disinhibitory effect allowing for people to express themselves in a way that would not be possible by any other means.

What is bothersome about these online communities is that the kind of friendly communication that occurs online is not apparent in the real world. People communicate with one another in an entirely different manner which confines social ties. People are not as interactive or friendly. They also cannot communicate their implicit emotions as well as they can through CMC. This causes me to believe that people will soon be incapable of true face-to-face communication and will be bound to these online communities. Barry Wellman and Milena Gulia confirm this in their statement from Net Surfers Don’t ride alone: Virtual Communities as Communities, April, (1996).

“By contrast, critics worry (mostly in print, of course) that life on the Net can never be meaningful or complete because it will lead people away from the full range of in-person contact. Or, conceding half of the debate, they worry that people will get so engulfed in a simulacrum virtual reality, that they will lose contact with "real life". Meaningful contact will wither without the full bandwidth provided by in-person, in-the-flesh contact. As Texas commentator Jim Hightower warned over the ABC radio network: "While all this razzle-dazzle connects us electronically, it disconnects us from each other, having us 'interfacing' more with computers and TV screens than looking in the face of our fellow human beings."

Conclusively, while these online communities are allowing for greater forms of communication and expression, it is eliminating the amount of real world interaction between people. Simply, a person may be able to find their soul mate via internet, but in all reality it is impossible for them to fornicate and reproduce on the internet. Therefore, although the online community can expand and develop social ties, it is eliminating the amount of real world interaction which could result in the cease of face-to-face communication almost entirely.