Dane Cook recently gave the digital world some good advice. No, seriously. Despite his trademarked hurricane of expletives and (porta) potty storytelling, the comedian offered some wisdom into twenty first century communicating. His anthem? If someone sends you a text message, “…text them back”. Okay, sure, this doesn’t exactly scream revolutionary social commentary, but there is more to Cook’s point than reminding his audience to politely return social gestures. His decision to highlight cell phone software in a standup routine about 21st century “love and confrontation” proves fundamentally insightful. Text messaging doesn't exactly fall under traditional RSVP phone manners. There is something slightly more poignant, slightly more generationally accurate about the social rules of text messaging than the rules of other--non-digital--communication devices. During the course of his show, Cook credits computers with creating a new type of connection between people altogether, one that is specific to computer technology and has not otherwise existed before it.
The discreetness and convenience of “texting” versus that of other communication technologies has brought relationship--the presence of “other”--into venues previously exclusive to individuals. Rejection from a text message or, rather, rejection in the form of an un-replied e-mail, has the potential to access a level of vulnerability and loneliness inconceivable to other generations in history: With more ‘space’ available to bring someone there is also more void within which to feel their absence… their disinterest… their confusion. The joke is poignant because it rides on the assumption that most people (at least those in Cook’s significant American fan-base) now suffer from some version of this text messaging-related anxiety. Bravo, Dane.
Communication technology as a serious sculptor of behavioral norms and gender roles will be the primary focus of this blog. With computers and the internet responsible for “digitizing” the bulk of modern relationships, the very concept of relationship is starting to equate a particular aesthetic…a pixelated one…one, say, in the form of a myspace page, or a facebook profile, or a saved list of cell phone texts, or e-mails, or instant messenger histories, or, well, blogs. Humans’ relationship to each other, to the world, and to themselves actually—tangiblely—looks like something. The “face” of connecting, the history of a relationship’s evolution is trackable (and marketable, as we’ll soon see). Social technology is giving people a mirror to see themselves, to check-up on themselves and their endeavors in the third person. “Dating” is, in a way, something you can now do with yourself. We ‘date’ the personas we paste of ourselves onto social software…we are both the courter and the courted… perhaps believing we finally have a hand in controlling our own reputations and destinies. We pick and chose which new 2.0 application best defines us, which words, which photos (remember we're allowed to detag the ones we hate, editing out the angles we don't like to see of ourselves), which color schemes, which songs, which you tube videos (which experiences in other people's lives symbolize what we find funny about ourselves or our own personal relationships). We are constantly in the process of sculpting versions of self that will be attractive not only to others but attractive to the very self we are trying to replicate online... so much of this media is whispering, "I want to be attractive to me..."
Our pixelated personas have as much room to evolve in cyberspace as our bodies have to grow in the physical world. So is one affecting the other? Do the relationships between our pixelated selves have a direct impact on the relationships between our actual selves? With so much attention and meaning placed on the individual, with so many ways to feel lonely or rejected or beautiful or understood, how ARE we measuring connection? How DO we define quality of relationship? Dane Cook's bit on text messaging suggests the emotional infrastructure of personal contact is in the midst of revolution... boys and girls alike find themselves on equal playing ground as they type their way through the (often) awkward and uncharted territory of digital affection.
The accessibility and brevity of cyberspace simply means there are more people, more cultures, more images and literature at our fingertips. Sexual dynamics between two people come down to a lot more than just where one is from, where one works, and what he or she—or Z—‘looks’ like. So what are the patterns now? In a more connected-yet-fragmented world what are the tendencies of relationship? What is love ‘looking’ like (digitally)? I look forward to exploring these questions over the course of my journey here at "Textual Liaisons", and to embracing your feedback.
(Post #2) Profile of Blog on Dating and the Digital Market:
As I began exploring the blogosphere's interest in "gender and technology", I came across a particular website I felt applied structural elements of professionalism to an otherwise colloquial subject matter. Although the blog's creator does not approach online dating from a strictly academic perspective per say, I believe the discussion community he's managed to orchestrate around online dating could be valuable to scholarly writing on gender in the modern era:
David Evans, a Bostonian bookworm and self-proclaimed dating industry aficionado, manages a "news and commentary" blog about what it means to get acquainted online. While his postings speak primarily to marketers of emerging and established dating sites, Evans solicits considerable feedback from user clientele. "Online Dating Insider" (coupled with Evans more personal "Progress Bar”) is a perfect example of well-cited industry reporting that also thrives on non-industry feedback: reviews written from a marketer's perspective open doors to user assessments of the same product... both types of analysis conveniently listed on one website. The blog's navigable layout combined with its unique integration of consumer/creator critique have given Online Dating Insider a Technorati "authority" of 81.
One of the more outstanding features on Evans' site is his "directory" (found on the toolbar just below the blog's title). This link refers readers to an extensive software directory where, if you're signed up for an account, you're given access to Evans' online dating wiki -- something he created "in response to the lack of a single centralized resource for online dating resources". In addition to the directory Evans includes a "consulting" link (on the same toolbar) which provides counseling for companies unsure of what software is right for their particular dating service. The consulting p
age then links to a list of feedback from former clients who rave about Evans' insight into the industry, testimonials being the "bread and butter of [Evans'] reputation". The last structural element I will highlight are the "MyBlogLog" Link Stats. Embedded above the most popular links on Evans' site are tags telling the viewer in what order the links fall. For example, when the mouse grazes over the "contact" link it says "most popular outgoing link", and when the mouse grazes over the "consulting" link it says "18th most popular outgoing link"... it's clear the site is formatted by a true businessman.Online Dating Insider has been an epicenter of online relationship analysis since the end of 2002. In the past six years, Evans has gone from posting twice a month (if at all) in 2002, to sometimes over 60 posts a month in 2008. Evans works as a consultant for online dating services and social networking websites--in addition to writing a fair amount on emerging trends in software and safety. His approach to the subject matter is articulate, well researched, and informational without getting stale. While his primary focus is business and marketing, Evans’ list of resources and breadth of experience provides some interesting sociological insight into the ways people are meeting on the web…and who people WANT to meet on the web. (Check out articles: “Taaz Virtual Makeovers” and “Managing Your Online Persona”)
Tracking the success of dating websites helps construct a barometer for online “attractiveness”. The posts on emerging social networking ideas are fascinating. Even if some of these ideas never reach full-blown cyberspace stardom, we still get a glimpse into what people are needing from the internet, from digital technology, that they are not getting in the ‘real’ world. For instance, Evans’ post on May 23, 2008 discusses a budding social service called “Why was I dissed?”—a site geared towards finding out why someone dumped you, the site itself acting as middleman. Evans quotes Alexis, one of whywasidissed.com’s managers:
“Calls go un-returned. Emails, unanswered. It’s like one half of the relationship fell off the face of the earth. But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can get the answers you’re looking for with WhyWasIDissed.com. We use e-mail to contact the gal or guy who’s been giving you the brush-off, ask them a few key questions, and report back to you with our findings. So you’ll have a better answer about what went wrong, and how to avoid those pitfalls next time.”
Evans includes some examples from his personal life (well, not HIS personal life per say but examples from the lives of his personal friends) in order to discuss the potential success of this company. He writes, “Some people admitted they let things cool off (in past relationships) by simply not contacting the person. Others said they would at least appreciate an email saying, “I’m just not feeling you.” Evans later confesses he’s “not sure [he’d] want a third party reaching out to someone [he had gone] on a date with”, and then opens up the forum for others’ feedback. This style of blogging, while extensive in its marketing research and a great resource for links to articles on the networking industry, Evans’ blogs are not sociologically in-depth. They are not specific to gender construction in the greater scheme of human relationships. The entries are usually not much more than 300 words, his analysis begging of further discussion (at least from a scholarly perspective).
Evans’ audience seems to be a mix of people interested in USING this kind of software, CREATING this kind of software, and WRITING ABOUT this kind of software (“I have extensive experience educating journalists about online dating safety, emerging trends, social networking and social media”). My target audience is not so much consumer as it is scholar. I would use the Evans’ newsfeed on the networking industry to then derive my own sociological analysis about the nature of sexuality and identity.
(Post #3) Another Blogger's "Voice" On Relationships and Cyberspace:
Cherie Burbach found her soul mate on the Internet. Her book on the experience, At the Coffee Shop, has opened doors to a fan base composed primarily of middle-aged women in search of their own ‘perfect’ match. While Burbach blogs for a variety of venues, the majority of her writing concerns the ever-evolving dynamics of cyber love. She is a contributing editor to “The Dating Weblog” (one of those listed in Mr. Dave Evans' Blogroll). Her goal? To help others construct an online profile that accurately represents their “unique personality, and [show them] how to manage the 'art' of Internet dating”. While Burbach’s writing isn’t exactly academic, her musings highlight “gender” as a key determinant of online experience. She is not a businesswoman in the conventional sense and, though she does not blog with a marketer’s tone, is in the business of selling people…on dating. Her posts are casual though poignant in subject matter, her questions provocative. In some ways, her voice embodies the frank yet maternal spirit of a traditional matchmaker.In her post entitled “Online Dating and Body Type”, Burbach raises a heavily engendered issue. ‘Most’ American women (Burbach sites the National Center for Health Statistics) “have a little meat on their bones”. Her use of this particular expression says a lot about her sensitivity toward women and their body-perceptions. It also says a lot about the audience she is trying to reach. The article overall seems more chastising of men than anything else…it is certainly not an in-depth, richly sited sociological analysis on body types and social media. Burbach’s style is blunt and succinct: “Hey guys?...You’re gonna have to get over it.” Her tone, reprimanding: “Many [guys] have beer guts and bald heads and yet turn up their nose at curvy gals…Maybe the solution for this is to have men actually take a look in the mirror, and women not to be so hard on themselves.” Burbach’s attempt to better engage people in, well, engaging, falls on her casual wit and simple, idiomatic vocabulary.
“Cyber Affairs: Online Cheating and How to Stop It” defines (in slightly less casual terms than her aformentioned post) the ‘new’ ways in which people are capable of cheating on one another. This blog is better cited, though mostly with links to her own articles. Her tone is still concerned and to the point—“Now [a days], partners can simply log on and find someone to flirt with or pour their heart out to”—but she manages to take a more professional approach to the information. The post does not accuse a particular gender of more sin, per say, than the other. Her conclusions are more philosophical and her guidance, while still compassionate, more definitional: "Cyber affairs...take moments of intimacy that should exist in a marriage or partnership, and replace them with a real (albeit unknown) individual." Burbach has organized the post into six sections (Cyber Affair Definition, Cyber Affairs Hurt Relationships, Cyber Affairs vs. Porn, Characteristics, Solutions, Prevention), creating a STEP-BY-STEP evaluation of this uniquely modern form of adultery. Her vocabulary stays basic, but the structure of her analysis comes off slightly more clinical and authoritative.
Overall I find Burbach’s written presence “familiar”. Her insights sound as though they were coming from the voice of a wise yet ‘hip’ aunt figure…one who maybe goes to church on Sundays…one who sticks true to her conservative morals while making the vast and foreign world of Internet dating accessible to the average American.
No comments:
Post a Comment