Social Implications Of The Internet

Pg 307 – “Current research tends to focus on the Internet’s implications in five domains: 1) inequality (the “digital divide”); 2) community and social capital; 3) political participation; 4) organizations and other economic institutions; and 5) cultural participation and cultural diversity. A recurrent theme across domains is that the Internet tends to complement rather than displace existing media and patterns of behavior.”

~ Really the point I’m interested in is the 5th one.

Pg 307 – “By “Internet” we refer to the electronic network of networks that links people and information through computers and other digital devices allowing person-to-person communication and information retrieval.”

~ Good definition of Internet.

Pg 308-9 – “Sociology’s major theoretical traditions emphasize different aspects of electronic media. For Durkheimians, point-to-point communications media like telephones reinforce organic solidarity, while broadcast media like radio or television yield powerful collective representations (Alexander 1988). Marxists focus upon exploitation of communications media to enhance elite control of both politics and production through cultural hegemony and enhanced surveillance (Schiller 1996, Davis et al 1997). Weberians attend to the ways in which point-to-point media advance rationalization by reducing limits of time and space, and broadcast media provide the elements of distinctive status cultures (Collins 1979).”

~ I never knew there are so many different ways of talking about electronic media. But I think I like the idea of the “organic solidarity” of the telephone in terms of identity building.

Pg 310 – “Anderson et al (1995) were among the first to highlight the potential of inequality in Internet access to limit people’s opportunities to find jobs, obtain education, access government information, participate in political dialog, and build networks of social support. By “digital divide,” we refer to inequalities in access to the Internet, extend of use, knowledge of search strategies, quality of technical connections and social support, ability to evaluate the quality of information and diversity of uses.”

~ So the “digital divide” can also affect the development level of individuals because they are not exposed to as many identities because they do not have access to them through the Internet.

Pg 313 – “Yet Internet traffic is highly concentrated: 80% of site visits are to just .5% of Web sites (Waxman 2000a). As was the case with broadcast media, the growth and commercialization of the Internet has been accompanied by a commodification of attention.”

~ So with media being such a huge influence it creates a culture that is fairly similar, and yet the differences in personal history are really what affect the major portion of people’s identity.

Pg 314 – “More recently, two studies have suggested that the Internet may induce anomie and erode social capital by enabling users to retreat into an artificial world (Kraut et al 1998, Nie & Erbring 2000).”

~ So not only does the Internet affect one’s personal history and identity, but also culture in general by eroding the social capital.

Pg 314-315 – “Much of the debate over social capital is about whether the Internet attenuates users’ human relationships, or whether it serves to reinforce them. Experience with earlier communications technologies suggests that Internet users may substitute time online for attention to functionally equivalent social and media activities (Welss 1970).

~ Hmm, interesting, so people are using the Internet as a stand in for another identity. This might add to the formation/dissolving of culture to add a third section…redistribution of culture.

Pg 315-6 – “Kraut et al (1998), who used a rare longitudinal design to study 169 Pittsburgh-area families who were given computers and Internet connections over a two-year period, reported that higher levels of Internet use were “associated with declines in communication with family members, declines in social circles, and increased loneliness and depression.” The authors inferred that heavy users substituted interactions with weak ties on the Internet for time spent with close friends and relatives. Yet as the researchers followed their sample they discovered that, except for increased stress, negative psychological effects decayed to statistical insignificance and some positive outcomes emerged. They attribute these changes to increases in experience and competence and, more speculatively, to the Internet’s greater utility in the later period and to a change in sign of network externalities from negative to positive as more of these users’ friends and family went online (Kraut et al forthcoming).”

~ Nice case study on how something small, like Internet access affects personal history, which in turn affects identity, and then culture. This might make an interesting flow chart.

Pg 316 – “Nie & Erbing (2000) surveyed four thousand Internet users online and asked how the Internet had changed their lives. Most reported no change, but heavier users reported declines in socializing, media use, shopping, and other activities.”

~ So the more involved one is in a certain culture the more one’s other cultures/identities change. Good for the chart/theory.

Pg 317 – “The Internet seems particularly unlikely to corrode the social capital of women, more of whom than men employ the medium as a complement to other channels of social interaction. Similarly, a longitudinal study by Kraut et al (forthcoming) found that Internet use increased interaction with family members and reported closerness to friends, especially for users whose perceived social-support networks were strong before they began using the Internet.

~ The differences in gender also affect other identities, nice case study showing the implications of multiple identities bouncing off and relating to one another.

Pg 317 – “The Internet is unique among media in making it easy for people to assemble (at a distance) and communicate with many others at the same time in such settings as chat rooms or online discussion forums.”

~ So through this communication it is changing culture and identities since communication is kind of a base for all things dealing with identity. Would you even have a culture if you could not communicate? Or would it just be an identity?

Pg 325 – “Since 1980, changes in consumer demand have combined with new media technologies to segment markets and differentiate cultural goods, enabling individuals and groups to individualize their media habits. An as “interconnected network of audio, video, and electronic text communication that will blur the distinction between interpersonal and mass communications and between public and private communications” (Neuman 1991, p. 12), the Internet seems designed to take these trends to their logical conclusion.”

~ So, basically, the Internet has brought everyone together under a digital culture, but split cultures through its ability to individualize habits. Interesting, kind of like what I’m trying to do with my theory.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from JSTOR database.