Week 4: Space and Place
There are two main thoughts I?d like to share regarding this week?s readings. First, is the idea of the development of a sense of self based on spaces and how that seems to be drawing us, perhaps, too far in to a non-reality based experience.
Meyrowitz describes the work of Cooley and Mead regarding the sense of self as a social object; that ?we understand the social meaning of our behaviors and words as we imagine how others are imagining us? (2). Although I grasp the concept of the ?looking-glass self? I question how Cooley and Mead would differentiate between the different selves we create and develop (often across the different technological interfaces we choose) for personal versus professional representations of self. Do we fully base the decisions we make for how we represent ourselves electronically on how we believe the different audience per that interface will perceive us? And if these decisions are not entirely based on others? perceptions, then to what extent are they and how can that be determined?
Meyrowitz emphasizes that the ?media-networked glocality also affords the possibility of having multiple, multi-layered, fluid, and endlessly adjustable sense[s] of identity, [r]ather then having to choose between local, place-defined identities? (8) but he doesn?t appear to connect this concept of identity development with the sense of self he has argued is created by how we believe others to be perceiving us. How does media-networked glocality specifically affect the self or selves that are created by others? perceptions?
Although I?ve never participated in any of the games described in Manovich?s chapter his explanation of the exploration and movement through the navigable spaces of new media also highlighted some of Meyrowitz?s points. Of similar concern with my first thought, Manovich describes how ?the majority of navigable virtual spaces mimic existing physical reality? (228) and provide for experiences comparable to the American explorer. Meyrowitz would caution that ?the more that our sense of self and experience is linked to interactions through media, the more that our physical locales become the backdrops for these other experiences rather then our full life space? (7). Not only are we creating a new sense of self via new media spaces but we now perhaps are considering more fully the virtual spaces as our reality rather the true ?life space? we encounter. This concern makes me wonder what Richard Lanham (per our discussion in 702) would have thought about students who know only virtual classrooms and campuses. Does that open endless possibilities for exploration or limit the users to a lack of reality?
To quickly draw on another one of the readings, Kellerman indicates that the ?growing use of cyberspace for social relations and networking implies a decline in the importance of the communications sites and a growing importance of the communicating people? (131) but I question whether that is accurate. If the communications sites are representing not only how a sense of self is developed and perceived or a sense of virtual reality to be substituted for true reality, wouldn?t each site be critically important?
My second train of thought regarding the readings was my interest in the discussion of work space versus home space found in both Kellerman and Castells (is anyone surprised that this caught my eye?!).
Kellerman argues that the virtual meeting place lacks any cultural identity or historical heritage? (131) a point I am not unwilling to ignore at this stage in our understanding of the complexities involved with remote work space and telecommuting opportunities.
Kellerman describes that ?the perspectives that have rather changed in the era of personal mobilities are both the meanings and operations of places? (143). The home is not necessarily seen as a space separate from the work space. Personal mobilities have allowed for access to all functions originally associated with work space, except face-to-face interaction, to be available in the home space (or any other space in most situations). Yet we are still recognizing the implications of the loss of an entirely defined space for each social aspect of our lives. Kellerman warns that ?[t]his global reach may be coupled with declines in local authenticity, as well as with a decrease in the traditional and rather absolute nature of homes as places of leisure, relaxation and personal interaction? (143).
Similarly, Castells discusses the history and current issues regarding telecommuting and teleworkers in his overview of the ?increasing disassociation between spacial proximity and the performance of everyday life?s functions: work, shopping, entertainment, healthcare, education, public services, governance and the like? (38). He examines the effect technology has had on the social configurations of space and what he determines as space of flows. What frightens me is Castells conclusion that our current path is ?toward a horizon of networked, ahistorical space of flows [as Kellerman first argued], aiming at imposing its logic over scattered, segmented places, increasingly unrelated to each other, less and less able to share cultural codes? (459). Where do we begin to compensate for the lost cultural codes of non-defined work spaces? And most importantly, what, if any, critical elements to the bottom line or profit of corporations does this lack of work culture (through primary teleworkers) impose?