Are cyberspaces similar to physical spaces? Do they have the potential to offer the same information, community, and relationships as physical spaces? The text quotes Egan’s claim that
for homosexual teenagers with computer access, the Internet has, quite simply, revolutionized the experience of growing up gay. Isolation and shame persist among gay teenagers, of course, but now, along with the inhospitable families and towns in which many find themselves marooned, there exists a parallel online community--real people like them in cyberspace with whom they can chat, exchange messages and even engage in (online) sex. (quoted on 378)
From my experience, online communities can, indeed, offer much of what physical spaces can; but online spaces can be accessed from private areas, such as bedrooms, allowing access to those for whom transportation to physical LGBT spaces is unavailable. For instance, one of the respondents in the Gay Pride 17 tinychat room told me that she could not speak aloud like the others because her parents would not like her being part of the online community. Others, high school students, explained that they were not out to their parents yet, so they turned to the online community for support, relationships, and encouragement to come out.
The text states that “We are inclined to believe that there is no easy equivalence between ‘real people’ in physical communal spaces and ‘real people’ online” (378). I find that it depends on which places and what type of interaction is happening online. Some of my best and longest lasting relationships have formed in online communities, relationships that persist after meeting in person (my online friends have never been different in person than online) or after years having never met. My best friend is someone I have known for 4 years and never contacted physically, yet our relationship has never suffered from a lack of physical presence. In addition to instant messaging, file sharing and audio/video calls over the internet make it much closer to communicate in ways that are almost identical to physical interactions.
And speaking of online spaces, what about social networking sites like Facebook? Many relationships today are developed and continued only partly in physical spaces. If people discount online interactions that allow contact at all hours or even delayed responses in the form of e-mail and messages, how much of the closeness that many people have achieved does not count by that definition? How is online communication different from letters? Clearly, if online communication can stand in for face-to-face physical communication for information, support, and emotional satisfaction from the perspective of individuals engaged in the interactions, it must be accepted as equivalent in those departments.
But online spaces cannot provide physical intimacy--the sex is not the same as physical sex, although that comes with benefits, too, as the text mentions the freedom from sexually transmitted diseases (but fails to mention safety from pregnancy, which may not be an issue for same-sex interactions but is still important for differently bodied individuals!). I find little difference otherwise. Activism is different in some cases (although education and planning can happen the same online as anywhere and may even reach a greater number of people). In unaccepting communities that some people are trying to escape by joining online communities, the problem may be slow to change; however, the online support that individuals gain can help them come out to parents in cases where they may otherwise never mention it. The internet allows for organizing events, too--couldn’t teenagers find a group or guest speaker to give a presentation at their middle school or high school in the community? In other words, sometimes the online communities also enable attitudes to be “transformed in physical space” (378).
No comments:
Post a Comment