In the first chapter of An Introduction to Cybercultures and New Media, author and English professor Pramod Nayar argues that a ‘cyberculture’ — the “electronic environment where various technologies and media forms converge” (Nayar 2) — is inalienable from our material world structurally speaking, despite the apparent disconnect between the physical and the virtual. In light of this, Nayar likens cybercultural studies to traditional cultural studies by highlighting social phenomena which are evidently linked in the physical and virtual worlds; for example, financial disparity inhibits access to the Internet, and so the development of and contribution to cyberculture is stunted within real-world communities that lack access, which proliferates material inequality (especially seeing as the Internet is a major marketplace, a la Amazon, and a significant source of corporate tax revenue, a la Silicon Valley). Nayar expounds on several major components of cybercultures which may be used as lens through which the enrichment, extension, or augmentation of physical culture could be analyzed, and re-elucidates the purpose of this analysis:
…cybercultures cannot be treated as simply virtual worlds created by computers but as a formation linked to, rooted in, affected by, and impacting upon the material and the real. This formation is the consequence of many structures, artifacts, systems (economic, legal, political, social, and cultural), ideas, and ideologies coming together: political economy, information, global finance, capitalism, the logic of the market, the structures of cables and wires, monitors, and SIM cards. It has argued that cybercultures must be treated as embedded in and connected to the real and the material world, where questions of economy, race/class/gender identities, politics, and power are crucial.
It is evident that cybercultures and physical cultures are inseparable in my mind. Especially in the respects Nayar documents, it is not hard to see that virtual happenings are increasingly important as our earthly routines move into cyberspace. This is something I think Nayar ought to say explicitly — that cyberculture not only informs, but absorbs elements of material culture. Take, for example, one’s reputation in the public eye (a good old leading example, which I bring up because I have some familiarity with Internet privacy policy). Before cities, reputation was of paramount importance in the immediate community — consider the American colony. Making waves could result in serious social consequences, and in fringe cases, even more dire outcomes.
Those “dire outcomes” of reputation to which I refer.
The cultural confluence characterized by cities reduced the importance of a neighborhood reputation substantially, new media — especially local news and television — took on some of the burden of a good name. For some time now, the best way to besmirch one’s good name has been to appear on area news for criminal offenses. One of my K-12 classmates has just committed this cardinal sin, which is probably the reason I bring it up.
Now, though, in the most connected continent at 69% Internet penetration (Nayar 9), North American society is developing a new reputation vector — the online persona. Our generation maintains a number of unregulated, unchecked information outlets including Facebook, Last.fm, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and so forth. Increasingly, these sources of information are used by our friends or acquaintances to form a picture of who we are as people. Maybe a more concrete though somewhat weak (because it is not personally maintained) example is that of RateMyProfessor.com. In using the website, our intention is not bad, certainly; but RateMyProfessor is a source of unregulated and severely limited information, often an easy reservation to dismiss when a bunch of blue emoticons, mouths upturned, are staring back at you hopelessly. Even worse, it’s possible to jump to harsh conclusions about the personality of the professor being rated, even though the intention of RateMyProfessor is to provide a semblance of classroom demeanor.
In a similar fashion, we can commit suicide in this early age of Internet reputation. A politically incorrect status update, an exposing About Me section, or a taste for country music can lead Facebook friends or social media surfers to pass swift judgment. Especially since one of your “friends” may post a compromising content, photos, or screenshots on Reddit without a second thought, it is important to remember that change is coming. What happens on the Internet, ends up on Reddit, or 4chan, or imgur. In this way, cyberculture is absorbing the brunt of the work necessary to maintain a good reputation. It is worth noting that there are agencies who foresee the extent to which online reputation will matter, and are working to establish a way to manage it. Privacy musings by a well-informed and active participant in the Internet privacy community, can be found here.
REFERENCES:
1. Nayar, Pramod. An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Austin, I like your input on how Nayar should speak more about how elements of material culture are also being absorbed by cyberculture. We automatically assume that the culture is being created with the expansion of Internet when reading this excerpt, when we constantly create our own culture that is being withheld without access to Internet. I talk about the digital divide in my blog and how different nations have greater or less access due to their geography or current situation. It is always interesting to me when I think about those cultures and societies that still somewhat thrive without proper access to the Internet. Nayar does not go into detail about the different disadvantages that people may have and run into, although some may be obvious, but it would be interesting to think about the different opportunities others may have without this convenient access to Internet.
A very thoughtful and meticulous post. I particularly like your first paragraph about how differences in class reappear in a digital context. I think Nayar is aware that the absorption goes both ways. As for your”Internet reputation” discussion, it is related to the topics of Nayar’s chapter, but somewhat tangential to his main concerns. You should link to the source you are blogging about and give more background on the author.