Today's world is vastly different from all previous incarnations. The
Internet is king and now we are in the midst of an unprecedented global
mixing and informational surge never before seen. What has made this even
more remarkable has been the speed with which concepts of associations have
been forced to accommodate the rapid growth of the online virtual worlds.
Even as we speak, more and more people are logging on to the Internet all
over the world, inevitably to engage upon conversation and eventually
associations online. This rapid explosion forces a new debate, one between
the new virtual online associations versus the "real" associations of
tradition. Which one is better? Or on an even deeper issue, are these new
virtual online associations for real or even trusted?
The importance of associations to civil society is perhaps best
demonstrated by Robert Putnam. His essay "Making Democracy Work" chronicles
the Italian regional government experiment which overall has been a rousing
success. In essence we were able to peek at history in the making, and even
taking some lessons from the experiment. One of these important conclusions
one gleans from Italy is that of the value of civic associations to the
stability and ultimate growth of a region or state. Putnam writes, " The
harmonies of a choral society illustrate how voluntary collaboration can
create value that no individual, no matter how wealthy, no matter how wily,
could produce alone. In the civic community associations proliferate,
memberships overlap, and participation spills into multiple arenas of
community life." (Putnam, 183) In this one can see a sense of belonging and
mutual dependence develop, leading to a mutual interest in seeing growth
and prosperity. Alexis de Tocqueville would also agree writing on the
American experience in the early 1800s. His findings were that the great
activity and associations of the American populace translated over to an
energy and concern as to how the country developed.
As the importance of associations is now established, how does it apply to
the new virtual online world? (only perfunctory analysis above, as this is
only a short paper) This can only be answered by first looking to the
definition of associations. Can an association be inclusive despite never
meeting face to face? Can it be inclusive despite having people who could
be on opposite ends of the world? I would argue that it can, however
perhaps not just yet. As technology continues to expand by leaps and
bounds, full streaming video and audio will be possible worldwide. However,
this has not occurred yet, and will be touched upon later. As of today
though, one can argue that online associations are every bit as "real" as
the classical definition of an association.
An association is a forum for people to meet each other. The same exists
on the web, in various forms. Global chatrooms such as Yahoo, WBSnet, and
assorted others can be found everywhere. It seems that nowadays almost any
page you see will have a chatroom accessible. In addition, there are
several specialized rooms designed with single purposes. Also, online sites
such as Geocities and Tripod, to name a few, are designed as a large
webpage based community. They have chatrooms now to be sure, but the
original purpose was that of free webpages for users globally. In fact,
Yahoo has acquired Geocities in an effort to complement Yahoo's online
endeavors. When one signs on to a chatroom, they are required to submit a
handle/nickname. This is what everybody else will see. In this one can see
unique personalities. For instance, my handle of choice is Sun Tzu. Inside
a chatroom one will find rapid conversations in and out. Depending on
whether there is actually a topic designated at the start will dictate to a
certain extent the subject matter inside a chatroom. More times than not
however, the conversations usually diverge from the original subject
matter. One of the more interesting facets of online communication is that
because of the lack of physical interaction, one feels more comfortable
expressing oneself. The best explanation I can give right now for this is
that when one can't see the other person, there is less accountability and
more ease with oneself. One doesn't feel like they are required to live up
to social standards. Thus in many cases online friends can become closer
than actual real friends can. There is an inherent danger in this as it is
foreseeable that one could get too attached to the virtual world and
disengage from the real one. However, for the most part people are still
more disposed to actual interaction. Additionally, it is quite amazing what
a global phenomenon this has become. From personal experience, once I was
in a chatroom where I was the only American. Everyone else was from Canada
or Hong Kong, or Taiwan. That is what draws many people online, this
opportunity to chat with people from all over the world. If one looks into
the future from this phenomenon, one could see the potential for global
unification (if one is idealistic enough of course). Online chatrooms are
not the only place, additionally the original Internet chat is still
thriving, that of IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Also on the rise is the new
concept of instant messaging, the largest of these being ICQ and AOL
Instant Messenger. But a further discussion of these is not necessary at
this point in time.
In response to the debate on virtual online associations versus real
associations, one can view the developments as they occur. Much as Putnam
detailed living history in Italy, so can we chronicle living history in the
development of Internet communities. As technology continues to advance,
eventually we will be able to chat in full view of each other. At that
point, the only difference between real associations and virtual ones will
be the distance separating participants. Virtual associations may not
necessarily replace real ones, nor would we ever want them to. However,
these associations are very much as "real" as a physical one. And in this,
we can see the strength of association develop and thrive.