Let me start off by saying The Cybercultures reader kicks ass!!! At least for the most part, not all of the readings are fascinating and extremely insightful, but definitely enough to lead me to the conclusion that it is in fact a great book.
So anyways….on to the blog…….
I quite enjoyed the essay Against Virtual Community, For a politics of distance by Kevin Robins. This essay is about the underlying issues about elimination of distance as we move towards being fully submerged in the virtual technologies, communities, and as technology becomes more, and more advanced. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?
Robins will show some key points from various people that argue both sides of this. Robins references William Mitchells advances in City of Bits and his belief that we will exist as “disembodied and fragmented subjects” and goes on to state that we will finally be “freed from the constraints of physical space.” Mitchell believes that we will become fully submerged in cyberspace by allowing ourselves to become completely engaged in the virtual world and its endless possibilities. Also by doing this we would be closing the gap of distance by means of technology, advanced devices, mobilization, data gloves, robotic prostheses, and new technological effectors and sensors. This would in end lead to the creation of us becoming “cyborgs”, where we could completely reconstruct our boundaries, where the outward is turned inward and vice versus. Robins agrees that this is the case, if we are fully engaged and open to the limitless boundaries of these technologies, which is only available in a virtual space. Robins also references Marion Young and how he believes immediacy is better than mediation and in the Rousseauist dream: we are transparent to one another, purely copresent in the same space, close enough to touch, and nothing comes between us to obstruct our vision of one another (Young 231, 233).
Robins understands and accepts their points, but believes that when trying to close the gap and live with no limits, no distance, no ends in a virtual space, we lose the world. He states that this a cultural retreat from Real Life, the real world, it is an extension of ourselves from a physical space and that it a place we have to question, be realistic about, and completely understand what it really is, and not what we merely want it to be.
I agree with both sides, but believe Robins has a full grasp of being cautious of being completely intertwined with cyberspace and knowing that distance itself is needed. I am well aware of the advances in technology and that some of them are marvels in their own right. We are able to have the accessibility to talk to people across country through a wireless device, or on a computer. We will have the option of experiencing things, places, people like never before without the hassle of flying, driving, etc., but then we are losing a lot about experiencing the experience itself. The smells, the touches, the scenes can in fact be replicated, but isn’t the same as having it firsthand. They are experiences someone else had and made available to us by the technological advances and cool gadgets and gizmos, that do give us more, but at the same time would take so much away. Agree with me or not, there are a lot of things that cannot be replicated in a virtual space. We have to understand that by completely eliminating the distance takes away from who we are as the human race, we aren’t cyborgs, we aren’t robots, we aren’t avatars, we are people. We have these technologies readily available to make life easier, simpler, to eliminate some of the distance of living across country, of having hectic schedules, these are conveniences.
Could we all really be okay with having no real life social interaction, no real life sensations, no real life experiences, I believe this would lead to no real emotions, and then, would this really be a life?
I could go on and on and on and on and this may not have got my point across….but due to lack of sleep and the fact that I posted this after the deadline, I will officially end this here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Adriana,
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with you that if we allow everything to become virtual we would be missing out on life. I think that to allow for the virtual world to enhance our real life experiences is a good idea. We can live in both worlds virtual and physical. I have enjoyed dabbling in the virtual world but I prefer the physical world for most of my interaction. I like to see the body language that goes with the physical world. In the virtual world I can only see what is typed or spoken and I miss so much in intrpretation of what is being said. Great review.
nice little post there.
ReplyDeletein my opinion i think we will one day become so entertwined with the digital world, it will become the real world. Some people are close to being already.
ReplyDeleteHey Adriana,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that we are not cyborgs, we are not avatars, and we are not robots.
I think that the point Robins' is making is that cyborgs, and avatars are becoming mere tools (robots) of mans' present reality. And that these tools will become even more common-place and practical (much like we use i-phones and skype now) for communication and commerce.
I felt the author was saying that we will experience cyber-tech communication as a real, human experience (as an extensions of our own existing thought processes), that will super-cede any notion of a virtual reality.
In my opinion human beings are more than just physical beings with physical limitations. I believe we are also social, and inherently, intelligent thought beings creatively designed with an inquisitive nature.
It is only natural that humans should conquer the great distances that separate us socially and economically.
Lee Kidd