Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Running Head: THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY1
The Internet Giveth and the Internet Taketh AwayJoi ChadwickGonzaga UniversityMarch 28, 2009
 
 
THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY
The Internet Giveth and the Internet Taketh AwaySince its inception in the late 1960's and popularization in the 1990's the Internethas influenced (and been influenced by) society and how people interact with eachother. As with many social phenomena, different views on this relationship between theInternet and community have emerged. Psychoanalyst John Hillman and journalistMichael Ventura say:
“
I live everywhere and nowhere. But I don
’
t know who lives next door to me.Who
’
s in the next flat? Who
’
s in 14B?
…
Community to me means simply theactual little system in which you are situated, sometimes in your office,sometimes at home with your furniture and your food and your cat, sometimestalking in the hall with the people in 14B
…
I think it
’
s absolutely necessary for our spiritual life today to have community where we actually live.
”
(Thurlow, Lengel,and Tomic, 2004, p. 110)In contrast to that statement, Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic offer:You don
’
t have to be living next door to someone - or even in the same country -to feel close to them, to share an interest with them or a sense of belonging.
”
 (2004, p. 109)The first statement opens the door for the argument that Internet has contributed to thedestruction of community while the second statement by the authors opens the door for the acceptance of the idea that Internet can/has contributed to the construction of aglobal village. In this paper I take the stance the Internet is a tool that can and has beenused to both ends.
 
Positions and accusationsThe authors sketch two positions for us. The first is the negative position thatblames communication technology for the loss of offline communities while creating
 
THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY
entities that are not proper communities. The second is the positive position that thesetechnologies make new communities possible and
“
help reinvigorate or enhanceexisting offline communities.
”
(Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p. 108) The problemwith both of these is that they tend toward reductionism and idealizing either offline or online communities. In the negative position the Internet is viewed as an evil entityaccused of contributing to the decline of society -
“
while you sit chatting with your cyber-buddies, the people next door may be being robbed and a house a block away isburning down!
”
(Thurlow et al, 2004, p 110) Couldn
’
t the same unfortunate situationsoccur if you were sitting in your living room chatting with other neighbors?Certainly the positive position has its share of idealism, too.
“
The Internet hasopened a whole new frontier that has brought every person in the world together in oneplace. [
…
] No longer do personal differences separate the seven billion citizens of theworld
’
s 244 nations; we are now one people united together.
”
(Thurlow, Lengel, andTomic, 2004, p. 108) This is a bold claim. It paints a picture that the Internet isresponsible for eradicating division, war, racism, sexism, age-ism, and all the other schisms of society. But not every person in the world has access to this technology. Asthe United Nations
“
estimates that 4 billion people around the world will probably never get online.
”
(Thurlow et al, 2004, p. 85) How could the Internet have created such autopia when more than half the world population does not even have access to it andthese schisms still exist? Both of these positions are too boldly polar, but they do eachhave merit.Breaking downThe Internet has provided another medium for people to carry out ills as well asperpetuate cultural divides. Gambling has found its place online, thus gamblingaddiction and other unhealthy gambling habits have found another way to claim addicts
Notes
Load more