Culture and Cyberculture
3.1 Defining Culture
One of the fundamental goals of anthropology is to identify, study and understand culture. Both Clifford Geertz and Edward Tylor have provided contemporary anthropologists with coherent and useful definitions of human culture. According to Tylor’s famous general definition, culture is “…that complex whole that includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by [individuals] as … member[s] of a society”.[1] In The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), Geertz states that culture can be defined as a
…historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means which [people] communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge. [2]
This definition can be seen as analogous to the Internet, where new users (sometimes known as ‘newbies’) learn behaviours, ideas, concepts and skills specific to the cultural environment from older users. Newer users then base their perceptions of the socio-cultural environment on these behaviours and skills while gaining more, which will in turn be passed on to other ‘newbies’.
Traditional anthropological thinking reflects that culture is undergoing a constant process of evolution. Indeed, it could be stated that, under a definition such as that provided by Geertz, culture must inevitably be a work in progress. The process of change is both natural and necessary. Society, too has recently begun to be considered as a dynamic force, in a state of constant reinvention. In recognising this process in society and culture as well as in individuals, anthropologists may begin to understand more about the causes and effects of such constant and dynamic re-invention and construction.
3.2 Defining Cyberculture
In order to understand the relationship between culture and technology, it is important to understand how the term ‘cyberculture’ is currently used in research on and about the culture(s) of the Internet. A baseline definition of cyberculture is provided by David Silver, a founder of the Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies: “Cyberculture is a collection of cultures and cultural products that exist on and/or are made possible by the Internet, along with the stories told about these cultures and cultural products”.[3] Silver also identifies three key characteristics of cyberculture: it is broad (meaning it exists within and extends through the Internet), deep (in that is a “product of complex and collaborative communicative practices which take place over varying segments of time and ’space’”) and it is in a constant state of flux. [4] This is a useful point to consider, as it expresses well how cyberculture can be likened to ‘real-world’ cultures. Many of the theoretical questions facing researchers of cyberspace (e.g. Where are the boundaries? Can people experience more than one culture at once? What are the characteristics of cyberculture? and so on) are actually the same questions which are facing anthropologists in the physical world, since, according to Silver, “all cultures are broad, deep and in a constant state of flux”.[5]
Some authors, such as Mark Dery, use the term ‘cyberculture’ to refer to cultural phenomena of the computer age (late 20th century). However, in this dissertation, the term will be used to refer to the cultural behaviours and products which exist on or are made possible by the Internet, following Silver’s definition of the term. Although the majority of applications of the term ‘Cyberculture’ as defined by Silver are to be found in cyberspace itself, clearly the term could equally refer to real-life communities or social areas, such as the cybercafe. This is an example of a social space which, although providing more traditional refreshment as well as Internet access and tuition, is at least partly a cultural product of the Internet. However, despite providing a useful analogy in many ways, the example of cybercafes will not be used extensively in this dissertation, for a number of reasons, both practical and theoretical.
3.3 Social Structure and Culture
Culture usually involves a set of accepted or expected behaviours, which could also be considered a shared set of actions and reactions. It is also a way of looking at the world from within a social structure. But can it be said that culture is the structure itself? The fundamental yet controversial question of whether culture is the people or the structure, or indeed both, has loomed large in Anthropology, and has been the subject of much debate. Structural Functionalism dictates that society is a super-organic structure which acts on its members. This view, inspired by the cross-generational aspect of culture, implies that it must exist beyond its individual carriers. The weakness in this argument is that since it assumes stability, it fails to explain how societies can change. Furthermore, functionalism assumes that the individual is an isolated bordered element, acting out cultural dictates like an automaton.
The structured definition of society as a set of social meanings blurs the boundaries between the traditional conceptual categories of society and culture. Usually, society is considered to be much more rigid and easier to measure. This comes as a result of being constructed from any number of discrete, quantifiable units, which may take the form of institutions, laws and so on.
Culture, on the other hand, is a much more abstract concept. Although certain phenomena, roles or meanings can usually be identified, these are rarely bounded, isolated wholes, which may lend themselves to academic study. The increased popularity of ethnographic research over the course of this century has provided the discipline with new ways of thinking about culture, based on the systematic collection of data - hard evidence, as opposed to speculation.
This has led in part to the belief that culture is often constructed in the overlap between such phenomena or individuals, or in the way in which an individual[6] or group of individuals respond to the task of living; interacting with others as well as experiencing cultural phenomena and institutions. Social structure can also be constructed through the continuous repetition of acts and the patterns of relationships which grow from such behaviour.
What humans say, think and do are all embodied ways of being human, and not separate units of behaviour which have no relation to each other. This realisation helps anthropologists to take a much more holistic view of culture and society, the structural relationships as well as cultural traits. Therefore, the question which begs to be asked is whether there is actually anything to be gained from attempting to make such clear divisions between culture and society. It may be that the reciprocal relationship between the two is a more relevant subject of investigation.
A simple way to consider the relationship between society and culture would involve first understanding that an individual does not live in a culture, but instead lives it. This fundamental understanding leads to the realisation that society can be identified as being constructed of the social patterns which emerge from living a culture.
3.4 “Webs of Significance”
Social patterns can also be thought of as systems of meaning. These consist of negotiated agreements about relationships between symbols (words, behaviours, etc.) and significance. Understanding these processes of negotiation and agreements is important to be able to understand culture. However, since systems of meaning involve relationships which are neither essential nor universal, different human societies will inevitably agree on different relationships and meanings. This relativistic view is supported by Geertz’s subsequent reflection that when the actions of those outside our culture are not understood, we are acknowledging our “lack of familiarity with the imaginative universe within which their acts are signs”.[7]
Studying culture inevitably involves the study of three basic components: what people think, what they do and their material products. Each of these components can be collected through the use of ethnographic methods, to a greater or lesser extent. A fourth component, however, is the key one in the interpretation of culture. It involves detecting and sorting the meanings and the structures which accompany all of the above components. [8]
In general, therefore, it could be proposed that the single most important aspect of an analysis of culture is the interpretation of meanings. Taking Geertz’s semiotic view of culture, and his belief that “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun”[9] and that those webs are culture itself, it is easy to see, how the Internet could be considered a cultured phenomenon. This may come about through no more than a set of shared behaviours, but it may also occur through an understanding of the technology which enables social interaction in cyberspace. In order to understand the concept of culture more fully, however, it is first necessary to add the immersive, active aspect of culture to this idea of pre-existing webs of cultural meaning which inform action. In culture, from the perspective of this definition, meaning and action are united.
3.5 Transportation, Communication and Storage
In his 1997 book Virtual Culture, Steven Jones identified three expectations on which communication technologies focus user attention; transportation, communication and storage. He explains that
each of these plays a central role in the development of CMC and the Internet too, and it is common to find the Internet considered a transportation device (witness Microsoft’s ‘Where do you want to go today?’ advertising campaign), a communication device (e-mail…etc.), and a storage device (a form of networked encyclopaedia). Most of our communication technologies have, at one time or another, been vested with similar … abilities. [10]
The ways in which people use the Internet can therefore be extremely revealing about their view of technology, as well as characteristic of their use of technology in general.
John Seabrook, a journalist who devoted two years exclusively to the methodical exploration of cyberspace as a social space, noted one of the most striking differences between synchronous and asynchronous postings. He noticed that postings in the third category of Computer Mediated Communication were
…generally less anonymous than Chat. Because a record of your conversations was more likely to remain in existence, people tended to be more cautious about what they said. As more conversation was added to the record over time, it acquired a history; then the history was interpreted into a kind of ideology. The record … was a history of all the transactions between the people who belonged to that particular group. [11]
In this way, Seabrook demonstrates the idea that the social history of communities on the Net is preserved and documented, sometimes for years. He also insinuates that a permanent record of the social transactions of the group continues to be constructed by participants as time progresses. The participants in a community may later come to rely on the archived social history for guidance on behavioural or ideological matters as well as for information.
It seems obvious, that as well as social histories, documentation or text-based memories can also provide records of individual participants. One author describes this as leaving an “electronic trace”[12], like a snail. In my experience, this has certainly been the case. One example of such an instance occurred when I was trying to locate an old college friend who was last known to be living in Eastern Canada.
After typing his name into a search engine[13] I was presented with a number of page references. The first few pages related to his time at university, mentioning his name only in passing in his capacity as a member of the college senate and so on. However, I knew from his age that he had probably long since left college, especially since the pages were all dated 1993-4. The second batch of page results related to his being an alumnus of my college, which was no use since I was also listed there, and even my information was outdated. The third batch of search results were intriguing, and pointed to a series of his recent postings to newsgroups concerned with either Canadian politics or unrest in East Timor.
By trawling through these results I was able to finally come across a link to a Canadian national student newspaper website, which in turn had a link to his own homepage. Although his personal homepage was dated to the beginning of this year (1998), and an e-mail address was provided, I was not able to re-establish contact with my friend, as he has probably since moved on or changed e-mail addresses. However, I was able to discover that he is (or at least was, when the page was published, in spring) editing the student newspaper in question, and also find out about all that he had been doing over the last seven years. During the searching process, some of the references to him I discovered were nearly six years old, and yet still they remain hanging in the nowhere-land of cyberspace. The homepage had become a representation of the individual in question, and provides a good example of the traces that individuals can leave in cyberspace, through space as well as time.
The reason that such traces can be left is simple in the case of the World Wide Web. Remembering that this facet of the Internet is also constantly under construction, it makes sense that, due to unlimited building resources, space and lack of regulation, the Web will never be ‘finished’ in the final sense of the word. New pages are now being created at the rate of approximately one per minute14, and there are thought to be well over a billion pages already in existence, although it is difficult to give an accurate figure. If the Web was limited by physical space or material resources, the space occupied by these pages and sites would certainly be at a premium, and old pages and information would need to be ‘demolished’ or erased to make way for new. However, since there are few boundaries to limit building in cyberspace, the number of pages is infinite and therefore not limited.
Although most businesses, institutions and individuals on the Internet make special efforts to ensure that their pages are kept up-to-date and relevant, it is often the case that a web page will continue to exist long after a business has folded, or an individual has left the relevant institution (e.g. university). A further, though in some ways opposite, problem is created by the actual structure of hypertext. Since all pages on the Web are linked by the network of hypertext links earlier discussed, poorly maintained pages can be liable to suffer from a phenomenon jokingly referred to as ‘link rot’, in which a link is provided to a page which no longer exists. ‘Dead Links’ are an extremely common (and generally frustrating) feature of browsing the World Wide Web.
A text-based memory, in the case of CMC, and a slow turnover in the context of the World Wide Web can also have its disadvantages. It is increasingly important to be careful what is said in cyberspace - the walls have ears. The great dictum of Computer-Mediated Communication is that “You Own Your Own Words”. This phrase once greeted members of the WELL as they entered the conference, and is still used widely throughout communities on the Internet. The truth, however, is that They own You. Through them, and usually only them, others create an image of you. With them, you have to conjure not just textual interfaces, but space, body, time, mood, character, humour, sarcasm, action and reaction. Through them, you make your point, and are then held to it, for eternity, or at least until the archive disappears. Whatever you ’say’ will be taken down, and may be used in evidence against you.
3.6 Experimentation and Play
The psychologist Erik Erikson commented that “[t]he playing adult steps sideward into another reality; the playing child advances forward into new stages of mastery”.[15] In cyberspace, with the increasing sophistication of the new information and communication technologies available, users can do both. Gibson’s original vision of cyberspace as a full alternative reality has not yet come to fruition. However, social interaction via Internet technology allows users to experiment with identities, ideas and situations. Such experimentation is necessary for identity development, argues Erikson, supported by Turkle in the context of the Internet, who notes that “if our culture no longer offers an adolescent moratorium, virtual communities do. They offer permission to play, to try things out. This is part of what makes them attractive”.[16]
As part of the research process for this dissertation, discussed in greater detail in chapter six, I used an on-line conference to ‘try out’ some of my theoretical ideas about cyberspace and culture. This was an important part of the research process as it enabled me to interact with other anthropologists and social scientists with special interest in cyberspace, in an environment which clearly fostered the kind of discussions we were having.
On-Line writing in this context was clearly very different from the final printed version of this dissertation, because, as journalist John Seabrook points out, “print writing tend[s] toward being a monologue, on-line writing toward being a dialogue”.[17] Furthermore, participation in such an environment enabled me to interact with and try out my ideas on people whom I would probably find intimidating in face-to-face situations. In this way I was able to engage in discussions on cyberculture and virtuality with professors at prestigious US universities, authors of books on the subject and leaders or originators of on-line communities, as well as with other postgraduates in the humanities and those with a non-academic interest. This kind of experimentation is clearly an experience I am unlikely to be able to reproduce in a face-to-face context. Turkle gives the example of a participant in a MUD for whom “playing on MUDs has enabled a continual process of creation and recreation. The game has heightened his sense of his self as a work in progress”.[18] In a similar way, my participation in a virtual community heightened not only my sense of myself as a work in progress, but also the sense that my work was itself continuously under construction.
A similar kind of experimentation process, ‘bricolage’, is one of the fundamental characteristics of cyberculture. Psychologist and Internet identity theorist Sherry Turkle explains what the ideas of a French Structuralist have to do with the computer age:
In recent years, computers have become the postmodern era’s primary objects-to-think-with, not simply part of larger cultural movements but carriers of new ways of knowing. The French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss described the process of theoretical tinkering — bricolage — by which individuals and cultures use the objects around them to develop and assimilate ideas. [19]
Turkle extends the notion of bricolage to include objects of the postmodern culture of simulation. This includes desktop interfaces, in which the user interacts with ‘icons’ which he or she relates to as being ‘files’ or ‘documents’ and ‘folders’, without any real understanding of the actual workings of the computer. [20] Indeed, even the words involved; ‘desktop’, ‘file’, ‘recycle bin’ refer users to familiar, tangible objects. Turkle notes that this idea of representation is increasingly obvious in the nineties. According to her view, we are
increasingly comfortable with substituting representations of reality for the real … We join virtual communities that exist only among people communicating on computer networks as well as communities in which we are physically present. [21]
By learning to take things such as objects, interaction and community at interface value in this way, in terms of computing as well as culturally, Turkle argues that “we are moving away from a modernist culture of calculation toward a postmodernist culture of simulation”.[22]
3.7 A World of Shifting Surfaces
The Internet lends itself well to postmodern discourse. Sherry Turkle has pointed out that “Post-modern theorists have suggested that the search for depth and mechanism is futile, and that it is more realistic to explore the world of shifting surfaces than to embark on a search for origins and structure”.[23] It is clear that computers embody and mimic the shifting surfaces of post-modernism. With multitasking abilities and opaque operating systems, computers become an extension of the self - and not merely a tool for work. We cannot see what is going on inside a computer and nor (more importantly) do we want to. An obvious example of this is seen in the difference between Macintosh and Windows ‘desktop’-led Operating Systems and MS-DOS, which is the underlying structure for programming and operation. Although some users understand and are able to work within the transparent DOS environment, most users prefer to deal only with the opaque surface desktop metaphor, because it is easier to navigate and more pleasant to operate.
Frederic Jameson notes that Jean Baudrillard was talking about the “pleasures of opacity” when he wrote about the “seduction of technology”.[24] Building on that, Jameson’s classic categorisation of post-modern character reports that we should consider surface over depth, simulation over real and play over seriousness. [25] Each of these can be clearly seen to encompass “…many of the same qualities that characterize the new computer aesthetic”.[26]
Jameson commented (in his 1984 article “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”) that while the late 19th and early 20th centuries had factories and smokestacks which represented the modernist age, post-modernism has no such representative objects. [27] Turkle comments in 1995 that this lack of representation was theoretically inevitable, since “Postmodernism undermines the epistemologies of depth that stood behind traditional representation [and could therefore] only be represented by objects that challenge representation itself”.[28] However, she goes on to argue that the computer has now filled that representation gap. What is more, she continues, it also satisfies Jameson’s call for a new “aesthetic of cognitive mapping” - in other words, a new spatial way of thinking, which helps us understand the complexities of the world. [29] Turkle goes on to claim that the arrival of large-scale computer use and the Internet forces us to re-examine our complex relationships with others, but using new conceptual boundaries of spatiality and self. This concurs neatly with Stone’s ideas about extending the definitions of ‘meet’ and ‘face’. [30]
Elizabeth Reid, following prolonged research into culture in Internet Relay Chat, came to the conclusion that “[s]ince computer-mediated communication systems are “designed specifically to affect the transmission of symbols and meanings”[31], IRC - which is both international and electronic - has the potential to alter understandings of cultural analysis”.[32] It is certainly true that there is evidence of cultural characteristics in cyberspace. All of the main components of classical definitions can be identified; material infrastructures; social relationships; ideological systems; expected/prescribed behaviours; cultural products; systems of meaning. However, it is equally true that each cultural unit which can be identified is actually expressed in a unique way. This is true of culture whether manifested in urban Manchester, rural Nigeria or cyberspace. Meanings and significances can be discovered in the forms that culture and sociality take, in both the ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ worlds.
<< Under Construction: Chapter Two | Main | Under Construction: Chapter Four >>
