There was this book I had to read as a freshman in James Madison (…which probably means nothing to non-MSU people, because most MSU people didn’t know what Madison was. It was the College within the University that focused mostly on political stuff. I was an International Relations major for two years before I realized I wasn’t going to be a politician or policy adviser. I switched into Telecom, and then Professional Writing, if you were curious. /tangent) called Bowling Alone. Honestly, it was a fairly forgettable book. The Federalist Papers were more interesting. But there was one thing that stuck with me after I was done reading, although I’m not sure it’s what I was supposed to get out of the thing. The author spoke about how people were becoming more and more cocooned in their own lives, encased in technology and engaging less with other people.
Which is a concept I took issue with at the time, and still do. Admittedly, yes, watching TV, playing Guitar Hero, and surfing the internet are individual sports. But they don’t have to stay that way. Technology lets these things, usually done alone, become group activities. Ask Jericho fans if they watch TV in a vacuum. Well, watched. It’s over now, but a group of strangers managed to get together, mostly virtually, and convince a network to put their show back on the air. You’re missing half the fun if you don’t talk to someone about Lost the day after they move the island, or about BSG when they reveal the final Cylon. Rock Band grew out of the idea that Guitar Hero would be more fun if everyone could play together. And I don’t think there’s a site I regularly visit that doesn’t have substantial user-added content (even if it’s just in comment or forum form). Technology isn’t tearing us apart, it’s pulling us together.
The interesting thing to me though, is that online communities seem like baby RL communities. People are still trying to figure out the rules and regulations, how to make virtual space worth inhabiting. The LambdaMOO debacle (academically fascinating, emotionally disturbing) really illustrates that. People come together and create a community, one that by its very nature seems to prevent order and discipline, and try to work out a way to keep it from descending into chaos. Ultimately, one guy had to step up to the plate, and I think that seemed to be Keen and Tenopir’s big issue with Web 2.0–there isn’t one guy to step up to the plate and take responsibility. There isn’t even a plate.
I think that’s the key to social computing as a concept. It’s not just the technologies and the communities, but how people build and use them, and why. Social networks, social software, and online communities are all aspects of social computing, but there is also an intensely individual and personal aspect to the concept that gets left out of those specific aspects. Through this class, I’m hoping to learn not just more about the mechanics of social computing, but also more about how social computing can improve individual’s experiences, online and in real life.
Chakroff's Blog 
I’ve read several posts that address or briefly touch on the question of just what the definition of social is. I agree with Denise that it is “important to look someone in the eye, listen to their tone of voice, watch the body language that goes with the words they choose to use. I also agree that relationships can be greatly enhanced by electronic communication. I know that my relationships with my sisters and my dad have deepened in just the few weeks I’ve been here in Hawaii. (Home is 4000 miles away, stateside.) My dad has developed a relationship with his estranged brother through e-mail and photo sharing.
I do think, however, that there can be an isolating factor to online communication. I know this from personal experience. It can be difficult to stay close to someone when the only communication you have with them is electronic. For those that may be predisposed to be loners I think that being able to communicate almost exclusively from a distance can be very isolating. As with most things, moderation and balance is important in our social computing experiences.
Comment by Linnea — January 25, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
What a strange tie-in, I actually started down the path toward my research when I read “Beyond Bowling Together”, which, as is obvious from the title, was an extension of Bowling Alone and also Bowling Together (I can’t remember now which came first!). I agree – social computing is still a very new concept, one where everyone is trying to figure out what works, what doesn’t, and what they want in the future. Your description of people’s activities makes it seem like Web 2.0 applications emerge and evolve without any structure or control. How far does social determinism go? In my opinion, I think many online systems started out as very technical applications, driven by technologists and a desire to produce a trendy new device or system. In the Web 2.0 era, the social has taken the lead. But I think there needs to be more synergy. In the 90’s, one might ask, “How do I build the next great technology?” A more recent researcher could ask, “How do we bring people together?” In the future, I think the appropriate question should be, “How do we leverage the relationship between the social and the technical that can best mediate social interactions?”
Comment by karhai — January 23, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
What personal and individual aspects do you see that tend be left out? The LamdaMOO example seemed to point out how a seemingly impersonal text based game can incite such strong emotions. Nardi/Schiano/Gumbrecht discuss an example of blog content that was “self-absorbed, hemetic, depresssed” while the author had full understanding on who would be reading. How about the reverse? Do you think there are personal and individual elements expressed in social computing products that would be difficult to convey through traditional means.
Comment by Dean — January 23, 2009 @ 12:55 am
When my younger son was 16, he went to study in Mexico for 6 months. As a parent who loves her children more than life itself, I dreaded the day that he got on the plane. But we did have our communication systems in place – cell phones, e-mail, im, skype, so off he went. One of the interesting things that we found out from this experience is that with the increased distance and use of technology, our discussions deepened and we became close in a different way than we could have experienced by living in the same house. It was almost as if the intermediate use of technology gave us the opportunity to share our thoughts and feelings on a whole different level. Interestingly, the medium that worked the best for us was the instant messaging feature. It seemed that having to type gave us the opportunity to communicate more clearly and openly. As I look back on it, possibly this example was a mini social networking system that our family set up during this time. Your comment about the intensely individual and personal nature of social computing brought up this memory for me.
I’m thinking about the information you share in your posting about an author’s perception that technology increasingly cocoons people and your comment that it brings individuals together. I think that it does both. There is that intimacy of sharing ideas and common interests through a computer – which is great – but it is also important to look someone in the eye, listen to their tone of voice, watch the body language that goes with the words they choose to use.
Our ability to form social relationships in our physical environment consists of a variety of skills that have been somewhat defined in educational and behavioral research. It seems that there is a whole different subset of social skills that need to be developed as an individual deepens or begins social relationships online using social network systems.
Comment by Denise Guerin — January 21, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Spot on, the goal of togetherness transcends whatever tools or technologies people happen to be using at the time. And you don’t know how close you guys came to having a chapter of Bowling Alone in the course syllabus…
Comment by Rich Gazan — January 19, 2009 @ 4:31 pm