Internet Culture

In the context of an ethnographic study, Internet culture might simply be defined as cyberspace devoted to discourse. Such a definition is conveniently loose; it encapsulates the three essential components of any example of Internet culture one might provide — people, meeting online, interacting. Looseness is not without disadvantages, though; it could be argued that such a definition casts too wide a net. After all, isn’t conversation the primary component of almost all web activity? Alternatively, the point could easily be made that the definition is too narrow in that the focus on discourse fundamentally restricts the types of cyberspace considered to browser pages — what about online gaming, for example? Some refinement is going to be necessary, if “Internet culture” is to transcend speculation.

If we look to other fields of study for inspiration, we encounter the same problem of subjectivity. In Culture and Quality: An Anthropological Perspective, Patricia Hudelson, medical anthropologist and professor of cross-cultural care, posits a dynamic but pointed definition of culture as “the shared set of (implicit and explicit) values, ideas, concepts, and rules of behavior that allow a social group to function and perpetuate itself…the ‘normative glue’ that allows group members to communicate and work effectively together”. What is especially nice in our case is the word perpetuate; in fast-paced cyberspace, we are faced with the problem of identifying the difference between a candidate for an ephemeral Internet culture and a fad. Maybe our definition ought to include some reference to permanence — culture, installed digitally. An operational definition of Internet culture, then:

Internet culture (n): An online discourse community sharing a common set of values, ideas, and rules of behavior that facilitates function and growth.

College Confidential, as a discussion forum, is of an archetypal class of Internet cultures. Site users are provided the means to communicate through text and video, and every contribution is subject to discussion (unlike some news sites, for example). The uniting interest is apparent and relevant, especially since the intersection of college education and Internet use is large, according to The Chronicle of High Education. Finally, all users are subject to the rules of the site, enforced by mods and user flags at the risk of being banned — there is distinct order in the culture. The site fits the definition of culture as provided by Hudelson, too; not only is College Confidential a long-standing institution, dating back to 2001 and so satisfying our notion of permanence, but it retains an increasingly large user base drawn from a number of material social spheres — it is a culture that perpetuates itself.

One possible reason that College Confidential so cohesively fits the definitions of culture as outlined is that the self-selective user base is derived from a material culture of higher education. Traditionally, English society values all forms of education highly, but the college system is a true institution because it defines so much of a person in the material world, including career prospects and choices, family situation, and social circles. That an Internet culture would spring up around a discussion forum for higher education is actually no surprise; importantly, though, College Confidential is not a “derivative” culture by virtue of the unique community interaction.