From Naked Apes to Cyborgs

Rhine SamajdarIndian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560012.

SR. No. 11-01-00-10-91-12-1-09939.

A chronicle of the evolution of the Internet, from its naissance as a mode of communica-tion amongst academic institutions and American homeland security to an internationalsocial microcosm today, presents an insightful narrative into the complexities of humaninteractions in the ostensibly impersonal matrix of computers. The introduction of thecyberspace to the personal realm has resulted in a menagerie of influences, encompass-ing both the beneficial and the detrimental, on relationships and associations. As Krautobserves, “relationships that previously were established and sustained primarily throughface-to-face interaction have come to be complemented by a social technology that is cre-ating a new genre of interpersonal relationships.”[1] As a result, the notion of intimacyis progressively redefined by technology, which thereby warrants its extension to emo-tional, expressive and physical domains.

The fundamental transformations effected by technology in the process of relating oneperson to another leads to the concept of computer mediated relationships (CMR), ex-emplified by the advent of online dating through dedicated websites or social networkingplatforms. The behavioural sequence associated with the formation of such relationshipspresents a stark contrast to that of conventional ‘face-to-face’ relationships because thenecessity of spatial proximity is rendered redundant by the Internet and “the textual andgraphical based interface of Internet applications reduces the salience of physical attrac-tiveness.”[2] The definition of intimacy is reformulated herein in the sense that candidself-disclosure, unhindered by the apprehension of disapproval, becomes the sole meansfor two users to know one another while still preserving their anonymity under the masksof their cyberspace identities.[3] The inversion in the developmental sequence of a CMRsuggests the involvement of a relatively greater temporal and emotional investment andconsequently, a greater commitment to the relationship. Therefore, intimacy is framedwithin the confines of the digital demesne and sustains itself irrespective of the geo-graphical separation and the possibility of misrepresentation and undisclosed infidelity.It is judicious to note the difference of this digital intimacy with physically proximalcloseness in that “it is a distant intimacy – it is intimacy at a distance mediated throughtechnology. Digital intimacy may offer the sensibility of one-to-one closeness, but theone-to-one may be ‘real’ or illusory.”[4]

Clive Thompson, in his seminal article, illustrates that, the copious (and often over-whelming) volumes of information constantly presented on Facebook, Twitter and thelike contribute to the development of ‘peripheral awareness’[5] or ambient intimacy. Theform of ‘co-presence’ introduced by ambient awareness serves as a medium to “feel less

1

alone” for people in an existing relationship separated by locational constraints, anddigital technology such as video-calling, email and social networking indeed enables oneto perceive the presence of a remote lover. Conversely, such online portals simultane-ously jeopardise the intimacy of relationships since an increasing amount of time spent inthe virtual world implies an unsurprising diminution of the time attributed to ‘real-life’interactions.[6] In fact, G. Anthony Gorry, a scientist at Rice University, fears an un-fathomable loss of empathy since “our devotion to ephemeral images will diminish ourreadiness to care for those around us.”[7] The emotional detachment referred to andthe corresponding alienation can be exceedingly detrimental to human intimacy as itimpedes communication between partners and recent investigations indeed corroboratea strong positive correlation between the extent of online socialisation and loneliness.[8]Since digital technology often substitutes for face-to-face interactions, moulding a gener-ation that is anxious about intimacy and insecure in relationships, it is utterly incompletebecause “the parasocial ties we form through the Internet are not, in the end, the ties thatbind. But they are the ties that preoccupy”[9] and subsequently, exhaust the emotionalspace in one’s Dunbar number. Text messaging, although widely perceived to be moreintimate than telephonic conversations,[10] contributes to the attenuation of emotionalassociations since the words on the cellular screen and emoticons lack “phatic intimaciessuch as glances and gestures, tone of voice and physiognomic expressions, attentivenessand corporeal subtleties.”[11] However, the gaps of communication and distance that arebridged through textual intimacy effects emotional familiarity in relations “as languageitself is already contact: presence that is so direct that it annuls mediation.”[12]

The dual nature of technology as both enabling and limiting finds appropriate manifesta-tion in technosocial relational ties. The inherently inclusive nature of social networkingforums place relationships under the unremitting scrutiny and gaze of the ‘imaginedaudience’[13] and the corresponding approval or disapproval therefrom can negativelyinfluence their maturation and perpetuation.[14] Furthermore, public displays of affec-tion or conflict or selective self-presentation online[15] sacrifice the innate intimacy andexclusivity of the private sphere and can often exhume ghosts of the past, fomentingwanton jealousy and gratuitous mistrust. Lynessa Marie Williams’ article[16] exploresthe contributions of Facebook, in particular, towards many a failed marital union andhypothesises that “escapism and nostalgia” are important contributors towards onlineinfidelity. Moreover, the unfettered availability of sex, pornography and erotic chatrooms facilitate such unfaithfulness because of the lure of accessible sexual gratificationthat transcends the problems and “discontentment with one’s current relationship”,thereby leaving intimate associations susceptible to fracture.

The potency of technology to detract from relationships notwithstanding, it must beconceded that the digital age has heralded societal transformations popularly labelledas “the democratisation of intimacy”. As Dr. Stefana Broadbent explains, the advent ofcellular phones and emails has contributed to the emotional empowerment of the people,by enabling them to communicate with their loved ones from the workplace, particu-larly in institutions that have traditionally sought to forcibly demarcate responsibilitiesfrom personal life.[17] She progresses to lament the fact that such re-appropriation ofthe personal sphere, however, is not successful with all institutions. Nevertheless, it isreasonable to conclude that individual self-differentiation levels deterministically influ-ence one’s relational intimacy development and the utilisation of technology to regulate

2

closeness therein. Extensive studies have conclusively substantiated premises that peoplewith strong interpersonal ties effectively adopt technological opportunities to enhancethe same - a trait which is in exact opposition to the behaviour of individuals havingweaker relational associations.[18] An analysis of the influence of the differentiation ofself presents an unequivocal argument conveying the crux of this debate. [19]

“Technology may affect intimacy by creating opportunities for increased con-nection. Further, technology use may reflect intimacy in relationships if indi-viduals purposefully use technology to evade interaction with a partner (i.e.,volitional avoidance) or simply when partners do not allocate much time forrelationship building while much of their time is spent through technologyconsumption (i.e., loss of opportunity).”

The question of digital lifestyles’ enrichment or erosion of human sensibillities and theirprofound and ineffable influences on the multitudinous, ephemeral and transient actsof intimacy that coalesce together to define a bond of trust, compassion and love, stillremains a pertinent, albeit unanswered, one.

References

[1] Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis,W., Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement andpsychological well-being?, American Psychologist 53, 1017-1031 (1998).

[2] Merkle, E., & Richardson, R., Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: ConceptualizingComputer Mediated Romantic Relationships, Family Relations 49, 2, (2000).

[3] Schnarch, D., Sex, intimacy, and the internet, Journal of Sex Education and Ther-apy 22, 15-20 (1997).

[4] Martin, S., Digital Intimacy?, Into the Digital: Re-imagining Sociology’s problems,Available at: http://www.intothedigital.com/blog/digital-intimacy, Last accessedon: 10 September 2013.

[5] Vetere, F., Gibbs, M., Kjeldskov. J., et al., Mediating Intimacy: Designing Tech-nologies to Support Strong-Tie Relationships, PAPERS: Affect and Intimacy, CHI2005, April 2-7, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA.

[6] Hulsey, T. Empathy 2.0: Virtual Intimacy, Phi Kappa Phi Forum on Educationand Academics, Virginia Commonwealth University (2011).

[7] Gorry, G., Empathy in the Virtual World, The Chronicle of Higher Education(2009).

[8] Coget, J., et al., The Internet, Social Networks and Loneliness, IT & Society 1, 1,180-201 (2002).

[9] Turkle, S., Alone Together: Why We Expect More of Technology and Less fromEach Other, (Basic Books, 2012).

[10] Thompson, C., Brave New World of Digital Intimacy - I’m So Totally, DigitallyClose to You, The New York Times, 07 September 2008.

3

[11] Manen, M., The Pedagogy of Momus Technologies: Facebook, Privacy, and OnlineIntimacy, Qualitative Health Research XX(X), 1-10 (2010).

[12] Blanchot, M., Writing of the disaster. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press(1986).

[13] Marwick, A. & Boyd, D., I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users,context collapse, and the imagined audience, New Media & Society XX(X), 1-20(2010).

[14] Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, D. L., & Willetts, M.C., Social networks andchange in personal relationships, Stability and change in relationships, New York:Cambridge University Press, 257-284 (2002).

[15] Walthers, J., Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal andhyperpersonal interaction, Communication Research 23, 1, 3-43 (1996).

[16] Williams, L. M., Facebook Ruined My Marriage: Digital Intimacy Interference onSocial Networking Sites, Media Studies Theses 7 (2012).

[17] Broadbent, S., How the Internet enables intimacy, TEDGlobal 2009, TED talksAvailable at: http://www.ted.com, Last accessed on: 10 September 2013. Dr.Broadbent is currently the coordinator of the M.Sc in Digital Anthropolgy at theUniversity College, London.

[18] Haythornthwaite, C., Tie strength and the impact of new media, Proceedings ofthe 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Los Alamitos, CA:IEEE Computer Society (2001).

[19] Henline, B., Technology use and intimacy development in committed relationships:Exploring the influence of differentiation of self - A Dissertation in Marriage andFamily Therapy, Texas Tech University (2006).

4