Being an anthropologist and designer, my observations have taught me that there is little difference between physical and virtual social behavior from a cognitive behavioral and anthropological perspective. People have the same needs they always did - to feel part of a social structure and network, to feel validated and loved, to wield power, to seek and present identity, etc. I would argue that while technology itself provides differences in virtual and physical interaction, the structure remains traditional. It is just more visible more quickly now.
What I've been thinking about is whether the "etiquettte" arising from the use of "virtual" technology in a more traditional setting and people's reaction to that might be anti-social punishment. Consider this - as long as everyone (particularly in a collectivist setting) has access and benefits from the same technology, the use of such becomes the accepted norm. An example of this would be texting in Finland - because almost everyone has a cell phone and the benefits to society as a whole are understood. no one would dream of asking another to stop texting someone during a conversation. In fact, the person being texted is often drawn into the physical conversation as though they were a part of it. So there is no opportunity, really, to get something someone else has or to punish someone else for doing something that everyone is doing. In the United States, we use shame to get people not to do things or "decide" for themselves to adhere to the normative. If most of the room has decided that cell phone conversations or twittering is off limits in a particular setting, stronger-minded individuals will "police" the group making sure everyone adheres to a certain code of conduct.And this works most of the time as those being "policed" don't want to stand out and don't want to cause trouble among peers who might act as valuable connections. In a place like Greece, there is no reason to feel shame from someone who is a stranger. Because family and close friends are the only connections that truly matter, what a stranger says to you can be completely disregarded. And because rule of law is perceived as unreliable, no one will be following up either. So there will always be multiple people speaking loudly on cell phones during a concert, etc. Interestingly, those who try and "police" this behavior are punished by the policed as they are often seen as do-gooders and maternal/paternalistic in behavior. Individuals seem not to mind that the collective "suffers" as a whole. These are extreme examples however it makes me think that there are, as much as cross-cultural differences, individual differences within cultures. Perhaps those unwilling to conform at the lecture to "lecture-like" behavior did not see the benefit of doing so for the group as a whole and some could have become irritated with being told what to do and as such, anti-social punishment may be part of the reason they persisted. On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:30 AM, David Malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > thus is a tangent from Andrei's thread on Twitter @ SxSWi. > > "why us the person in front if you more important than the person a > million miles away?" > > the assumption coming from a pre-digital culture is that the people > with you ate more important than those away from you. > > I would like to suggest that in the digital cultural world that this > distinction is blurted at beat or just outright arbitrary dependent on > specific contextual queues. > > Personally I believe there is a balance we ate going to learn to > strike, but to do that we have to put aside our presumptions and allow > new and different things to happen. > > BTW, I am a lot less concerned about the example if people isn't media > while a panel or speaker is going on, then I am about Andrei's example > of people prioritizing their digital connections over those in front > of them during 1-on-1 moments. But even then, I would allow for the > possibility that someone can split their attention between the virtual > & physical. To take a Buxtonism I don't think we have reached "G-d's > Law" in terms of our abilities to attribute meaning and value to our > virtual relationships. > > - dave > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
