Ayala 1

Christopher Ayala

Dr. Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC-13100-28

9 December 2010

Social Behavior 101: How Technology Has Changed Human Contact

Over the last few centuries, different technologies have changed several facets of society

in small, incremental steps that led resulted in creating more refined systems in the future. The

industrial sphere of society was revolutionized when Eli Whitney introduced the practice of

creating interchangeable parts for mass production of rifles and other manufactured items. The

automobile industry, revolutionized by Henry Ford, incorporated Eli Whitney’s concept of

interchangeable parts and also incorporated Henry Ford’s idea of an automobile assembly line.

These two developments helped American industry to grow to levels beyond anyone could have

fathomed several centuries ago. Just as groundbreaking developments like interchangeable parts

and the assembly line changed industry, so too have developments in social technologies over

the centuries changed the way society behaves and communicates. Human societies have

progressed from an age relying solely on the word of mouth and a seemingly boundless memory,

to a society that relies both on the importance of spoken and written rhetoric, and finally to an

age that relies on the triumvirate of spoken rhetoric, the written or typed word, and digital

fluency. These transitions have not been seamless, however. Just like every revolutionary change

that ultimately affects how society functions as a whole, the development and usage of social

technologies have undergone periods of criticism, cynicism, rejection, and debate.

The debate on developing social technologies has heightened in the last decade due to the

massive increase of social technologies available. One such technology in question is Facebook:
 Ayala 2

that is, whether or not the social interactions made possible by this website are a legitimate

means of social interaction, even with its lack of real-world contact. Whether it is this very lack

of real-world contact or the growing number of applications available, the widely popular social

networking website released in 2004 has become a household word in the world, as is evident by

its reaching 500 million members in the summer of 2010 (Clemmit, Social Networking). Another

such technology that has its pros and cons is Twitter, a social networking website that is

frequented by people of all ages around the world. Even though posts or entries on Twitter are

incredibly limited, it has also reached new heights and has proved to be useful in different

spheres, such as the political sphere. Several politicians, such as Barack Obama have utilized this

program to reach out to the younger generations that frequent the metaphorical airwaves of the

Internet. Yet, even with evidence of social networking’s success, the claim can still be made that

Internet media hasn’t been in existence for a long enough time to be considered a source of great

credibility, unlike newspapers, a medium that has been in existence for centuries. It could also be

argued that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as Internet interactions in

general, have put society in a period of regression: one in which people have lost the mastery

over spoken rhetoric once prized by humanity. Though several great minds have argued that

these newer technological breakthroughs and trends have negatively affected the ability for

people to communicate, the very phenomena they criticize, such as instant messaging, blogging,

and social networking websites, have actually gifted society with forward progress through

improved communication with others and improved internal communications with the self.

Unlike a century ago, when society relied on the written messages that inevitably came

with the daily mail services, the social technologies of today allow for people to make contact

with each other in a moment’s notice through means such as internet social networking websites
 Ayala 3

like Facebook, instant messaging, or blogging. These recently developed phenomena have the

potential to foster a vast virtual community, one that provides a vehicle for durable online

communications and other potential communities “characterized by virtual togetherness,

friendship, love and altruism” that can create an “aspect of affective cooperation” (Fuchs 127).

That is, a community that can have more than just purely business related or shallow

conversations. What is possible is a digital and virtual community that houses people of all kinds

to have meaningful conversations. For example, Scott Caplan, an associate professor for

communication at the University of Delaware, says that a transition to online socializing may

help “people on the autistic spectrum” and people with “a plethora of medical and psychological

conditions” because it eliminates social cues they have difficulty with (Clemmitt, Social

Networking). In a digitized social world, these people could have day-to-day interactions, just

like everyone else.

These digital communications are not limited to the normal, everyday social interactions,

however. They may also be used for the discovery new and lasting friendships that can either be

formed or maintained through websites such as MySpace or Friendster. Although skeptics might

argue that relationships formed and maintained online are almost always likely to fail, it would

be important to note that this phenomenon is merely a different manifestation of a practice that

has been present for centuries. Consider the case study by Barry Wellman, Jeffrey Boase, and

Wenhong Chen. Teaming up with researchers from the University of Toronto, they found that

residents of a housing development with high-speed connections had more informal, friendly

contact with neighbors than residents who were not on the Internet. Residents with broadband

service knew the names of 25 neighbors on average, compared to the eight that non-wire

residents knew. The wired residents also visited their neighbors 50 percent more than their non-
 Ayala 4

wired counterparts (Clemmitt, Cyber Socializing). This challenge of creating new connections is

also made easier with Web 2.0, the media for human communication, and Web3.0, the

networked digital technologies that support human cooperation (Fuchs 127).

Just as the development of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 phenomena provides swift and copious

contact between freshly made connections, both Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies provide a

catalyst for strong online communities that support invaluable educational outlets. Educational

outlets provide a medium for civilians to branch out and explore educational possibilities that

weren’t present for the previous generation. The invention of blogging encourages a healthy

questioning of what is going on in the world, to question why things must be they way they are

and to imagine what the world would be like under different circumstances. Blogging spurs the

concept of Citizen Journalism vs. Corporate Journalism: the ability for politically marginalized

voices to be heard over the political majority (Fuchs 134). This idea is becoming more

ubiquitous and real as politically marginalized voices continue to create their own voice through

websites such as Twitter. One recent incident is one in which the Iranian citizens that were being

suppressed by the Iranian government during and following the time of the most recent

presidential election spread word of the situation seen from their eyes in order to make their

voices heard over the government’s iron rule (Grossman).

Another important development is the cooperation that stems from “Collective

Intelligence”, a term coined by Pierre Levy that is defined as “the sum of the knowledge of the

contributors” that “has a shared perspective to which all the contributors agree” (Fuchs 135).

This cooperation stems from the primary sources of collective intelligence on the Internet called

Wikis: bodies of knowledge similar to encyclopedias in that its content is decided through

discussions between knowledgeable minds in a given subject. These bodies of information,

 Ayala 5

however, are not held in high academic standing at most universities and high schools. In fact,

the vast majority of teachers on most levels discourage the use of sites such as Wikipedia

because anyone can create or edit entries. As a result, Wikipedia consumers are never certain if

the information is true, valid, and academically valued. However, if Wikipedia enacted a stricter

editing process in which only hired educated staff could edit entries of their own expertise and

reliable professors from different universities helped write scholarly entries, Wikipedia could

very well become a valuable source of information.

Although activity between individuals facilitated by newer social technologies is an

important element of what makes Internet communication distinctive, another important but

more personal and private element exists: the self-discovery that with successful attempts at self-

expression. Personal activity on the Internet creates an environment that has unique features that

help facilitate self-expression and self-discovery that isn’t present in real-life social interactions.

The first feature is “the ability for one to be relatively anonymous or non-identifiable in the

individual or group interactions on the Internet” (McKenna 211). With the social pressures of

real life interaction absent, an individual is allowed to act in whichever way he or she wants, free

from criticism from those whom the individual considers dear. This allows the individual to

experiment with different personalities, engage in other different activities, befriend anyone,

regardless and form an identity without any hindrance, resulting in an overall happier individual.

Another feature is that the Internet “provides people the opportunity to easily find others who

share important aspects of identity” as a given individual (McKenna 211). Rather than mingling

in a social setting in which one cannot relate to the other people in a group due to their divergent

interests, one can instead choose to interact with people through cyberspace that one considers

more interesting due to their convergent interests. As a result of their shared values, a more
 Ayala 6

comfortable environment is created that alleviates the creation of a new friendship, even without

the perk of meeting face-to-face.

One could argue, however, that the lack of face-to-face interactions in a friendship

ultimately weakens the authenticity of the relationship. Without the facial cues present in face-to-

face interactions, such as sarcastic smiles, raised eyebrows, and the nervous discomfort that

arises from an individual when one lies, how is it possible for one to decode such social cues on

the Internet, where no such cues exist at all? Certainly, the difference between the interactions

between people in real-life and interactions between people on the Internet is quite tangible.

Awkward silence sometimes exists in face-to-face interactions when one doesn’t know what to

say, something that doesn’t exist online because there is an unwritten social code that says one

can take one’s time when responding to a question or statement. Actually, the absence of face-to-

face interactions is invaluable for those with extreme social anxiety (McKenna 211). In addition,

interacting “in the absence of physical cues and features on the Internet” may enable extremely

anxious people “to develop relationships that otherwise would not have started in the first place”

due to the removal of many situational factors that spark anxiety (McKenna 211). Without the

pressure that exists in face-to-face interactions, those who engage in primarily Internet

interactions can respond in a more tactful, engaging way than they could have otherwise.

Furthermore, the removal of face-to-face interactions prevents the formation of impressions of

others based on appearance alone (McKenna 211). As a result, typically stereotyped people like

the obese or racial minorities can approach a conversation with more poise and confidence when

meeting someone for the first time online rather than face-to-face.

It could be argued, however, that the development of more recent technologies has

ultimately caused a decline in social behavior, past a point that formerly marked social progress.
 Ayala 7

Take for example, Zygmunt Bauman’s concern with newer technologies’ increased participation

in love. He worries that “that online chat is replacing relationship with the endless circulation of

messages, and that this undermines commitment, longevity and trustworthiness. While online

relations appear smart…[it has the potential to] transform the other into a deletable object”

(Secomb, 110). Bauman’s argument is legitimate: what are we to make of love if our society

continuously uses technology in a disconnected attitude in which we treat new technologies as

merely a means to an end? Our society is trapped in a sense of “technological somnambulism”, a

drowsy trance in which we blindly continue on through life as technology adjust the very way we

live (Winner).

This argument can be taken further with the results of the Carnegie-Mellon HomeNet

study that states, “those who used the Internet most reported lower levels of family face-to-face

communication and interaction in social circles, as well as greater loneliness, depression, and

stress” (Rice, Shepherd, Dutton, and Katz 7). This suggests that technology actually pushes

people farther apart rather than bringing them together, the point of new social technologies

brought to existence by Web 2.0. What good is a technology that “arms every citizen with the

means to be an opinionated artist or writer” if the communities are falling to shambles as a result

of technology pushing people farther apart (Keen)? Why should this new technology be allowed

to grow if we survived centuries without it?

These are all realistic arguments that make incredibly valid points. However, in response

to the question as to why whether technology should grow or not, one ought to cite similar

historical examples in which the defining medium of society changed dramatically. After all,

there “are examples of technical genius from every age, in the inventions that enable men and

women to perform the tasks they need to accomplish in order to make life easier, more
 Ayala 8

comfortable or more enjoyable” (Poupard 37). Did Gutenberg’s contemporaries proclaim that we

needed to redefine the way we describe ourselves because humanity made a dramatic shift in the

way our society functioned? Certainly, there was opposition to widespread printing of

information over the centuries. Several philosophers of Ancient Greece, including Plato, who

emphasized memorizing information, certainly opposed the printed word, convinced that it

would be their society’s ultimate demise. In a way, these historical shifts of informational media

can be applied to the issue of today: the general shift of society’s attention from the printed page

to the digitally displayed pdf, the shift from physical to digital. Just as the lower and middle

classes gained the ability to own their own books during Gutenberg’s time, the growth of

technology provides a body full of information and communication that has the potential to bring

about revolutionary changes. Yet, just as Gutenberg’s innovations changed the traditional

consumers of books and the use of writing in Ancient Greek culture changed the ideals of

philosophers at the time, the consumption of social and communication technologies invokes a

sense of loss in the technological age. We veer away from our traditional parties and casual

conversations at bars to group video chats and text messages on the computer. Although the way

we communicate is changing, the fundamental nature of our interactions and feelings such as

anger, happiness, and love remain the same.

The points regarding love, “technological somnambulism,” and the HomeNet study all

address the issue of an absence of morality in technological affairs: that is, the general treatment

of newer technologies as a means to an end. Cardinal Poupard cites Pope John Paul II’s

encyclical Fides et Ratio, to present a solution to the way society ought to behave, specifically

those responsible for creating the newer social technologies by telling them to “ ‘continue their

efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological
 Ayala 9

achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and

indelible mark of the human person’ ” (Poupard 40). He says that the user and the object in a

technological interaction are tied, that the object is an extension of whom the person is rather

than merely a tool. It seems as if the people of society are more afraid of putting themselves out

in the open, in a vulnerable position, as a result of admitting that their actions are inherently their

own when technologies are used.

In order to overcome this fear, the usefulness of social technologies and its impacts on

social behavior ought to be looked at more closely, especially because of its prevalence in our

society. Social technologies have decreased the amount of time people are away from each other

with programs like Skype and have facilitated the speedy delivery of wonderful news such as the

delivery of a baby. If social technologies and technology in general are left unchecked, we may

never fully understand the implications of their existence on our own existence, and as a result, a

morality or social code for developing technologies may not be developed. In addition, if we

continue to walk in a drowsy haze through our society, we may not be able to realize the true

potential of our developed technologies, and consequently, may not be able to realize our

potential when coupled with these technologies.

 Ayala 10

Works Cited

Clemmit, Marcia. “Social networking.” Library.cqpress.com. 17 Sep 2010. Web. 28 Oct

2010.
Clemmit, Marcia. “Cyber Socializing.” Lirary.cqpress.com. 28 July 2006. Web. 8 Dec 2010.

Dutton, William H. and Katz, James E. and Rice, Ronald E. and Shepherd, Adrain. “Social

interaction and the Internet: A comparative analysis of surveys in the US and Britain.”

The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Eds. Adam N. Joinson, Katelyn Y.A.

McKenna, Tom Postmes, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2007. 7-30. Print.

Fuchs, Christian. “Social Internet Dynamics”. Internet and Society: Social Theory in the

Information Age. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. 127-135. Print.

Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0”. Weeklystandard.com. The Weekly Standard. 15 Feb 2006. Web. 28

Oct 2010.

McKenna, Katelyn Y.A. “Expressing and validating the true self.” The Oxford Handbook

of Internet Psychology. Eds. Adam N. Joinson, Katelyn Y.A. McKenna, Tom

Postmes, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. 205-

219. Print.

Poupard, Karl. “From Fear to the Beauty of Mystery.” Technology and Transcendence. Eds.

Michael Breen, Eamonn Conway, and Barry McMillan. Blackrock, Co Dublin: The

Columba Press, 2003. 36-43. Print.

Secomb, Linnell. “Barthes: A Lover’s Internet Discourse.” Philosophy and Love. Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press, 2007. 110-125. Print.

Winner, Langdon. “Tecnological Somanmbulism.” Remix: Reading and Composing Culture.

Ed. Catherine G. Latterell. St. Martin’s: Bedford, 2006. 644-649. Print.

Ayala 11