Find and connect with local individuals

How the digital world creates opportunities to meet local individuals

In het kader van mijn studie Communication Studies heb ik onderstaande paper geschreven met als onderwerp ‘Find and connect with local individuals – How the digital world creates opportunities to meet local individuals’. In deze paper wordt de verschuiving van de definitie van ‘lokaal’ als fysiek in de buurt naar ‘lokaal’ als in de buurt qua persoonlijke identiteit besproken. Deze paper laat zien hoe de digitale wereld mogelijkheden voor deze verschuiving heeft gecreëerd en hoe deze verschuiving kan leiden tot meer sociale contacten.

Introduction

In the growing digital world we see a movement from being ‘local’ as being physically proximate or within a proscribed neighborhood to being ‘local’ related to affiliation and personal identity. This movement is a consequence of the digital world, and could in my opinion lead to having more social contacts. In this paper I will show how the digital world created opportunities for this movement, how I think this movement can lead to more social contacts and discuss the movement based on several case studies. Central thesis statement of this paper is ‘How does the digital world create opportunities to find and connect with ‘local’ individuals (individuals who have for example the same interests or political views), and how do these opportunities lead to more social contacts?’.

The definitions of ‘local’ and the influence of the digital world

The two definitions of the term ‘local’ come from a research by Churchill and Ubois (2009). In their research about news consumption practices they found out that ‘local’ was not always used to describe things physically proximate, but also to describe people that are emotionally close or a shared membership in a (sub)culture. A key finding of their research was that the most common news ‘channel’ is word of mouth through groups one identifies with. Churchill and Ubois (2009) state that this underscores that the term ‘local’ may be based on personal relationships and identity networks, instead of based on geography. That the digital world causes a movement from the definition of ‘local’ as things that are physically proximate to the definition of ‘local’ as things that are close to your personal identity is in my opinion shown by Mitchell (1996). He gives an overview of building transformations in different sectors like bookstores, galleries, theaters and schoolhouses. Although this is a thirteen year old article, it gives some interesting views on the development of the digital world. For my topic, an important point in this article was the much-quoted aphorism by Winston Churchill: we make our buildings and our buildings make us. Mitchell (1996) states that it is time to update this aphorism to the following: we make our networks and networks make us. An example of these building transformations is given by Zaloom (2004). In her article about time, space, and technology in financial networks, she mentions the transition from architectural technology of the trading pit to electronic networks of dealers over the globe, which is in line with the statements from Mitchell (1996). This sounds very interesting in connection with the two definitions provided by Churchill and Ubois (2009). When I reflect these definitions on the shift from institutions supported by buildings to institutions supported by networks, it creates the possibility to meet people who are not only physically proximate, but also individuals who are close to your personal identity, and where you have an easy connection with because of the shared interests. This possibility is also confirmed by Zaloom (2004). She mentions that the electronic network separates physical and social space, which in my opinion means that individuals can connect, work, or socialize with other individuals who aren’t physically proximate, in line with the conclusions from Mitchell (1996) and Churchill and Ubois (2009). Another statement in line with Mitchell (1996) is provided by de Vries (2005). In his article about mobile telephony as ideal communication he refers to McLuhan who stated that media are to be considered extensions of the human body, enabling users to, for instance, hear or see farther, or to bridge distances faster than before. This statement shows that the digital world gives us the possibility to look further than what is physically proximate, and meet individuals who are physically far away, but are for example ‘local’ because of shared interests. Connecting with individuals who aren’t physically proximate started with the telegraph, and developed by taking the characteristics of old media and add new options or improve them (remediation) (de Vries, 2005). This eventually led to for example mobile communication and the internet. This development is important, because by expanding the possibilities to meet ‘local’ individuals, individuals can expand their social network, and the internet for example has become a means by which people expand their social networks and form close relationships (Wu & Chiou, 2009).

How being ‘local’ in the digital world could lead to more social contacts

In my opinion could this development to get in contact with more people who are ‘local’ to you lead to more social contacts, because most of the contacts an individual has are to some extent local, physically or related to personal identity, and because you have a good starting point to develop a social relation. When you are for example playing a video game, the digital world gives you the opportunity to use the network to meet teammates, opponents, and other users using the game. These are all users you have some sort of connection with, some sort of locality, because you are having the same interest, playing this game. That the expansion of the possibility to meet ‘local’ individuals can lead to more social contacts is in my opinion supported by the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). One of the axioms of Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that the more similarities you perceive to share with the target person(s), the more your uncertainty is reduced. Reduced uncertainty leads to increased liking and greater intimacy, which could in my opinion lead to a social relationship. I think that if the digital world provides us the opportunity to meet more people who are ‘local’ (you share for example the same interests or political views), we can create social relationships more easily. In my opinion is the easier creation of social relationships a predictor of more social relationships.

Where do individuals connect with other ‘local’ individuals in the digital world?

Now that I’ve shown that the digital world gives us the opportunity to meet more people who have the same interests, it is important to discuss where in the digital world we meet these individuals with the same interests, and how we find out that they have the same interests. One of the aspects of the digital world that is used to find and meet individuals with the same interests are the so called social network sites. A research by Boyd and Ellison (2008) about the history and use of social network sites shows me that some social network sites help strangers to connect based on shared interests, political views, or activities. Their research also shows that many social network sites attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using social network sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society, even if that was not the intention of the designers. This shows in my opinion that individuals are looking for others who are ‘local’ as in emotionally close or a shared membership in a (sub)culture, and that social network sites help us find these individuals and give us the opportunity to form social relationships with them. Boyd and Ellison (2008) also state that social network sites are ‘networked publics’ that support sociability, just as unmediated public spaces do. This statement supports in my opinion the movement from being ‘local’ as being physically proximate or within a proscribed neighborhood to being ‘local’ related to affiliation and personal identity.

How do we know someone is ‘local’?

Individuals can use social network sites to get in contact with other individuals with shared interests or another connection that makes them ‘local’, but how do we as individuals know if someone has for example the same interests or political views? Van Dijck (2009) states that there is a definite paradigm shift in the way media content is produced and circulated, and to me this seems as an explanation how we could find out if someone has shared interests, and is ‘local’ to us. Users have better access to networked media (by for example social network sites), enabling them to ‘talk back’ (van Dijck, 2009). Although not all users are active contributors according to van Dijck (2009), she gives a good example of how content generated by users connects individuals based on their shared interests. Scholars who are theorizing the current trend of participatory culture emphasize that users have a strong preference to share knowledge and culture in communities (or social network sites). Van Dijck (2009) gives YouTube as an example. On YouTube there are plenty of groups who share their cultural experiences with other users on YouTube. Examples of YouTube groups are anime-fans or heavy metal adepts. All the members of these groups are in a way ‘local’ to each other, because they share the same interests. We know that they are ‘local’, because joining a community makes your interest visible to the rest of the world. This visibility of your information, your interests / communities, or your contacts makes social network sites unique (Boyd & Ellison (2008). Based on the literature by van Dijck (2009) and Boyd and Ellison (2008) I think that the combination of the visibility of social network sites and the creation of user generated content gives us the possibility to find out who are ‘local’ to us and share for example the same interests or political views.

A disadvantage of the digital world in finding individuals who are ‘local’

Although the digital world creates opportunities to meet individuals with shared interests as mentioned in the previous paragraph, there is a disadvantage that we have take into account. I mentioned the visibility of social network sites, and the opportunity to see the interests of other individuals, but who tells you these interests are real? A research by Whitty (2007) shows that individuals can be quite strategic and selective in their presentations of self in cyberspace. Individuals also admitted that they were misrepresenting themselves on their profiles to attract others. These research was done on an internet dating site, so this might not be generalized to for example social network sites. What it generally proves is that the digital world gives individuals the opportunity to misrepresent themselves, and that we always have to be careful with strangers we don’t know and the information they give us. On the other side I don’t think this disadvantage takes away all the advantages of the digital world, and that we will still be able to find individuals with for example shared interests or political views. I want to discuss a case study to prove that we are still able to find individuals with in this case shared political views, and that this eventually could lead to more social contacts.

Case study: Twitter and the Iranian revolution

This case study to show that we are able to find and connect with individuals with shared political views is based on the article of Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Qiu and Say (2007). Their article is about the use of communication networks for social movements and political power, especially by using mobile phones and the internet. A missing chapter in this article – because of its age – is the use of communication networks in the Iran revolution, which were about clashes between opposition protesters and government forces loyal to Mahmud Ahmadinejad. This case is in my opinion a very important addition to this chapter and to this paper, because it shows how we can connect based on shared interests, instead of connect based on a shared location.

Twitter, a rapidly growing microblog, was used in Iran on mobile devices and personal computers to spread information. Because of the near-universal language of the Iranian twitterers cry for freedom, it was almost unavoidable that prominent American political activists would retweet (re-posting a tweet from a certain individual to your followers) their messages (Ambinder, 2009). By retweeting these messages, responding on these message, or turning their avatar green to show support for the people who fight for democracy at Iran, individuals show that they share the same vision, and that they are ‘local’ to each other when it comes to the political question in Iran. Also, just as at the Philippines mentioned by Castells et al. (2007), these new media technologies (in this case Twitter) enabled Iranian people from all over the world to participate more easily and get in contact with people in Iran. This participation from people who feel ‘local’ with the Iran people, although they are far away, can create the opportunity to establish new relationships, and create more social contacts. This is in my opinion partial facilitated by the transparent network Twitter is. You can see – and thus easily contact – who sends you a message, who retweeted your message, or who is visually supporting the Iranian people. These are all properties of social network sites that I mentioned before when I talked about how we could find out if someone is ‘local’. Overall is this example about Twitter and the Iranian revolution a great representation of the first two paragraphs about what the definition of ‘local’ is, and how this could lead to more social contacts. Twitter can be seen as a ‘building from the 21st century’, where individuals meet, connect based on the same interests or political views, and build relationships.

How can for example the church use the results from this case study?

The most important result from the case study about Twitter and the Iranian revolution is that we are able to get in contact with individuals all over the world based on for example our shared interests, political views or religion. This gives in my opinion for example religious leaders great opportunities to gather individuals with the same beliefs, instead of the same location. To analyse how religious leaders see the digital world, Kluver and Hope Cheong (2007) interviewed twenty religious leaders in Singapore. These leaders regarded the internet as a valuable tool for disseminating information and contributing positively to their religious communities. In my opinion are these conclusions not applicable to the rest of the world, because of the specific characteristics of Singapore, and the state’s role in promoting religion via the implementation of a religious knowledge program in the national educational curriculum in the early 1980s. However, I would like to refer to some points of this article. Most of them only referred to the internet as a place to gather information, not as a place for community building, which is in my opinion, and regarding the article of Mitchell (1996) and the case study about Twitter and the Iranian revolution, a chance they are missing for the different religions as well as the religious individuals. I think that a religious community could be an opportunity for religious individuals to meet other individuals who are ‘local’ for them, because of shared interests, in this case religion. Because religion is also an event where it involves a group of people coming together, which is also possible in the digital world in my opinion, individuals with the same interests are brought together, and have an opening for developing a social relationship. This is also in line with the statement from Mitchell (1996) to update the much-quoted aphorism by Winston Churchill ‘we make our buildings and our buildings make us’ to ‘we make our networks and our networks make us’. Why should we still see the church as a building, attracting people who are ‘local’ as in physically proximate? Couldn’t we see a church as a community online, attracting people who are ‘local’ as in sharing the same beliefs, and doesn’t this eventually lead to a better match (as in same beliefs) between the followers which could eventually easier lead to social relationships? Social networks or communities help strangers to connect based on shared interests, political views, or activities as mentioned before (Boyd & Ellison, 2008), and most of the social networks attract homogeneous populations initially. To me this shows that people are looking for others with the same interests, activities, or political views. Based on this statement by Boyd and Ellison (2008), the article of Mitchell (1996) and the case study about Twitter and the Iranian revolution, I think that religious leaders could bring followers from all over the world together – because of their shared interest, the religion – by making use of a community, and that this eventually will lead to more social contacts under their followers.

Why possibilities to connect with individuals who are ‘local’ related to affiliation and personal identity become more important

I think that creating for example online communities for a religion to meet other individuals with shared beliefs isn’t only a possibility, but also increasingly a necessity. In my opinion is globalization one of the most important reasons for this necessity. Lyon (2009) mentions in his book chapter about citizenship and democracy that the concepts of citizenship are now in flux, especially in situations of global mobility that have increased since the mid-twentieth century. He also states that citizenship is no longer defined only by nationality and the nation-state, but that it is increasingly de-territorialized and fragmented into separate discourses of rights, participation, responsibility and identity. This is for me an confirmation that there is a movement from being ‘local’ as being physically proximate or within a proscribed neighborhood to being ‘local’ related to affiliation and personal identity, as mentioned in the introduction. The statements of Lyon (2009) that there is a movement going on become more powerful when they are provided with a clear example. A good example of this movement is in my opinion shown by Lazonick (2007). His article is about globalization of the ICT labour force, and the article shows how the development strategies of the East-Asion nations interacted with investment strategies of ICT companies from the US to generate a global supply of ICT labour. In this article the problem of brain drain is mentioned. Brain drain occurs when developing nations invest in their education of engineers and scientists, but when the most attractive employment opportunities are abroad. Challenge for countries like Korea where reversing this brain drain. They succeeded in this, partly because of many highly educated and very experienced Koreans or Taiwanese who had been pursuing successful careers in the US who played key roles in building indigenous research institutes and companies (Lazonick, 2007). Reflected on the statements by Lyon (2009), I think that for these Koreans or Taiwanese the definition of citizenship is much more de-territorialized and fragmented into separate discourses of rights, participation, responsibility and identity. Most of these very experienced Koreans or Taiwanese had a successful career in the US, and to stay in contact with their contact-network they created in the US, they could use the possibilities of the digital world. By using these possibilities they maintain their relationships with the individuals who are ‘local’ as in shared interests or work, although they are not physically proximate. Boyd and Ellison (2008) say that the goal of making connections on for example SNSs are frequently between ‘latent ties’ who share some offline connection, instead of meeting strangers. This could mean that social networks don’t create a larger social network than before the digital world, but what if we reflect this on the globalization like what happened with the experienced Koreans or Taiwanese, and what is mentioned by Lyon (2009)? With the use of digital media individuals can maintain these social relationships, instead of losing them over time. In this case my opinion is that possibilities to connect with individuals who are ‘local’ related to affiliation and personal identity becomes a necessity because of the growing trend of globalization (Lazonick, 2007) and the changing concept of citizenship (Lyon, 2009). An important question concerning this paper after reflecting on the articles of Lazonick (2007) and Lyon (2009) is what the exact relations are between the constructs ‘globalization’, ‘digital world’, and ‘a growing social network’. Could it be that globalization is an effect of the opportunities of the digital world to connect with more individuals based on shared interests? Or could it be that the possibilities of the digital world created to easily connect with individuals who are far away, so because of globalization? General conclusion I get from this paragraph is that the aspects of globalization and a changing definition of citizenship provides enough reasons to show to for example the religious world that the definition of ‘local’ is changing, and that there is a growing need with individuals to get or stay in contact with other individuals with shared beliefs instead of a shared location.

Conclusions

This paper started with the research question ‘How does the digital world create opportunities to find and connect with ‘local’ individuals (individuals who have for example the same interests or political views), and how do these opportunities lead to more social contacts?’. Most important question is if this paper provided an answer on this question. For the first part of the question, how the digital world creates opportunities to find and connect with ‘local’ individuals’, an answer was provided in the first part of this paper. The movement from buildings to networks as described by Mitchell (1996) showed that individuals are no longer attached to a physical space, and for example the social network sites described by Boyd & Ellison (2008) give individuals the opportunity to find ‘local’ individuals. We can locate individuals who are ‘local’ because of the generation of user generated content and it’s user groups as described by van Dijck (2009) and the visibility of user interests and this generated content (Boyd & Ellison (2008). Although we can easily find individuals with shared interests, one thing we have to keep in mind when finding ‘local’ individuals online is the fact that individuals can be quite strategic and selective in their presentations of self in cyberspace (Whitty, 2008). Research could be done to see if this strategic and selective self presentation is influencing the uncertainty reduction to create a social relationship. The second part of the question ‘how this opportunities lead to more social contacts’ is answered in the second part of this paper. The Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that the more similarities you perceive to share with the target person(s), the more your uncertainty is reduced. Reduced uncertainty leads to increased liking and greater intimacy, which could in my opinion lead to a social relationship. This is one argument for me how the opportunities to meet more ‘local’ individuals lead to more social contacts. This is in my opinion confirmed by the case study about Twitter and the Iranian revolution. This case study showed how individuals based on political views interact, connect, and eventually become social contacts. With the information about this case study a proposition is made for the religious world. This proposition shows how the religious world could use the digital world to let individuals with the same beliefs meet each other. A second argument for me how the opportunities to meet more ‘local’ individuals lead to more social contacts is given in the last part of this paper. In this part the changing concept of citizenship and the growing globalization is mentioned. When we wouldn’t have the digital opportunities to meet other individuals with the same interests, or stay in touch with individuals we for example worked with from our time in another country, our social network wouldn’t be as large as with these opportunities.

References

Ambinder, M. (2009). The Revolution Will Be Twittered. Obtained at December 4, 2009 from http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/its_too_easy_to_call.php

Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.

Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J. L. & Sey, A. (2007). Mobile Communication and Society. A Global Perspective. Chapter 7: The mobile civil society: Social Movements, Political Power, and Communication Networks (pp. 185-215). MIT Press.

Churchill, E., Ubois, J. (2009). Lead type, dead type: New patterns of local news production and consumption. Paper presented at EPIC 2009, Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference, Chicago, IL. August 30th-September 2nd.

Dainton, M. & Zelley, E.D. (2005). Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life, A Practical Introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

De Vries, I. (2005). Mobile Telephony: Realizing the Dream of Ideal Communication?, in L. Hamill & A. Lasen (eds.), Wireless World: Mobiles – Past, Present and Future (pp. 11-28). London: Springer.

Kluver, R. & Hope Cheong, P. (2007). Technological Modernization, the Internet, and Religion in Singapore. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 1112-1142.

Lazonick, W. (2007). Globalization of the ICT Labour Force (pp. 75-100). In: Mansell, R., Avgerou, C., D. Quah and R. Silverstone (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford University Press.

Lyon, D. (2009). Identifying Citizens. ID cards as Surveillance. Chapter 6: Cyber-Citizens (p. 131-155). Polite Press.

Mitchell, W. J. (1996). City of Bits. Space, Place and the Infobahn. Chapter 4: Recombinant Architecture (pp. 47-105). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media Culture & Society, 31(1), 41-58.

Whitty, M.T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707-1723.

Wu, P. & Chiou, W. (2009). Rapid communication. More options lead to more search and worse choices in finding partners for romantic relationships online: An experimental study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3).

Zaloom, C. (2004). Time, Space, and Technology in Financial Networks In M. Castells (eds.), The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective (pp. 197-213). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.