Technology Neil Postman Analysis

The articles “Technology” by Neil Postman and “I’m So Totally, Digitally, Close to You” by Clive Thompson both set to address the role of technology in society and debate whether the internet has an effect on community. Does community exist on the internet? Thompson argues that the internet, social media more specifically, provides a “dynamic of small town life”. With the involvement of social media in the twenty first century, does the definition of community adapt to this new phenomenon. The possibility of social media being a valid medium of which communities can thrive is likely because the internet resembles aspects and characteristics of the traditional community and the existence of the physical world and the virtual world are not mutually exclusive.
Thompson compares social media to the life of living in a small town. A community where people inhabit, who are not particular close in physical proximity, yet close in the in the way that a group of people are intimately involved. They are this way because the constant stream of updates made throughout each
individual’s day, routinely updating the user with new trivial information into the individual’s life. This can create a phenomenon Thompson describes as ambient awareness, the effect of unconsciously learning the habits of patterns of people who post frequently. Postman argues that community is “made up of people who may not have similar interest but who must negotiate and resolve their differences for the sake of social harmony”. To have such a community, implies collaboration, debate, and overall a common goal. Working together to achieve this shared goal, social harmony, requires efforts made by occasionally conflicting peers bound by their need to pursue their common goal. Postman claims that social media has warped the once meaning of community into a new demolished metaphor for a group of individuals who share common interests. The determining flaw that the current definition presents compared to the traditional is that these similarly minded people conjugate without a concrete and defining goal. It is true that social harmony is not required on the internet; survival of the human race is unavoidable with or without the involvement of the internet. However, social harmony may not be the overall goal of community found on the internet, but connection and communication could be contenders for the internet’s unifying objective.
Postman insists that community cannot exist online, where community consists of people who are in close proximity of each other that strive to work together for the common good. However, what is excluded from the reality of physical and virtual space existing simultaneously is the intersectionality of people who are apart of someone’s community, virtually and physically. There are multiple instances where someone is a part of one’s community periodically or permanently in both physical region and social media mediums. For example, Thompson describes the account of distant friends gathering at a public place, the group can talk continue their conversations from the internet to face-to-face. Virtual identity and community can pose a problem for traditional life. Digital communities provides several nuances in the limitations of natural resources, create reductions in the quality of their relationships, and ultimately creates a paradox to imply virtual community is an alternative entity and not an extension of what the traditional physical interpretation. The internet provides a medium that allows for a multitude of quick interactions with an overabundance of acquaintances in various locations. Maintaining relationships with these people requires resources that are, fundamentally, limited; in other words, interactions with others takes a considerable amount of time that was previously utilized to form traditional bonds. Because of the increase in the ratio of interaction to individuals, the qualities of relationships decrease. The ideology of the internet creating communities in society is very plausible.
Community as a construct is very broad and viably applied to the needs of people in its traditional context. As Postman said, “People are quite capable of adapting to all sorts of changes; soldiers adapt themselves to killing, children adapt themselves to being fatherless, women can adapt themselves to being abused”. Certainly, adaptation does not have to be gruesome or extreme as Postman’s examples, for one can adapt to an assortment of situations and context. Who is to say that the definition of what community entails and provides as a social construct is not malleable to the needs of the present? As Zuckerberg said, quoted in Thompson’s article, “…Social norms catching up with what technology is capable of”, it is plausible to suggest that community, in terms of the preserving social harmony, is found in social
media.