Virtual communities, identity and social relations: Our bodies, time and space.

Identities and social interactions are often defined within the contexts of the communities we inhabit. Dynamics such as time, bodies and space are experienced differently online as opposed to real life, altering the way we experience and engage with these elements. Whilst our experience of these are often subject to a form of disembodiment, they do contain limitations, which are set out by regulators within specific communities and general guidelines established by the WC3.

In offline world social interactions and identities are often seen as being synonymous with our physical selves. The way our bodies look and move can give clues about our cultural preferences, racial origin, our supposed personal habits, value systems and more controversially a physical type is often associated with certain personality traits, regardless of whether or not that person possesses those qualities. Slater (2007) refers to a kind of liberation from this process experienced on the net which he refers to as “disembodiment”.

The quest for authentic communication and social interaction based on the cerebral rather than the corporeal can be actualized via the internet. Physical participation in any overt sense is not needed to form friendships and develop alliances; users can choose simply not to show what they look like. The body nevertheless has a role in virtual communities; its omission in communities often gives way to the formation of virtual selves expressed in virtual physical form examples include Wow, Second Life etc. (Mayra, 2008) Furthermore, images can be altered via Photoshop, performing selves that users may not feel comfortable expressing in day to day life. Its expression can be used in a different way to real life yet it is variable depending on the context and medium the user chooses to engage with so long as they conform with the guidelines of the wider community.

There is a wide array of choices are available for users of the internet to select and develop their avatar and/or character and engage in role play and furthermore the opportunity to monetize actual or created physical attractiveness can be facilitated via self published sites. “Danielle DeVoss has argued that (these) women’s self-published porn sites can be seen as “identity projects”(2002:76). And Ruth Barcan maintains that more generally, images – particularly those of nudity – now play an important part in the way we form our identities” (Atwood, 2007) The presentation of our selves online, facilitates this ability to monetize our identity to a greater extent than what is available in offline contexts. The power to act as an individual agent is greater and not as monopolized as performance spaces and contexts are in real life.

Whilst expression on the internet lends itself to various multimedia forms, it is also subject to censorship and accessibility standards. The only uniformed approach to these regulations is provided by the WC3, which outlines in its Platform for Internet Selection Document”(Resnick, 1999) “The PICSRules specification provides a common format for expressing filtering criteria, which makes it easy for one entity to set filtering criteria which are then installed and run by someone else” The document was established out of concern that children may gain access to unsuitable materials.

Consequently, it can be clearly ascertained that forms of identity and social interactions in terms of bodies, time and space online aren’t limitless; there are very specific codes and netiquettes, specific to each community, rules and conventions on the net are usually brought into place to safeguard and make internet usage a safe experience, these codes and conventions differ community to community and some restrictions are specifically relevant to geographical locations such as China, who's access to many western applications such as facebook is limited. So whilst the notion of identity is not only recognized within a localized geographical community it can actually be viewed and accessed on an international scale with variable political and social ramifications.

So whilst “The apparent annihilation of space online pro-motes a sense of co-presence, that people can be present to each other in a way that corresponds to face to face interaction”, this description of internet best translates into a mundane and everyday experience of the internet, which involves catching up with friends and family, being involved in web community that shares you value systems and beliefs. In fact many communities thrive in an online environment, provided they comply with the regulations within that community. Furthermore, Slater (2002) asserts that “The notion of disembedding gave rise to one of the largest sets of claims about life online: that new media could sustain communities that were entirely virtual”, thus having wider implications on the way people socialize in everyday life. Whilst notions of greater accessibility for marginalized members of the community is relevant here, it also illustrates the potential significance group selection and regulation in the socialization process, should groups of people within communities, wider international community’s get along.

In Pascoe’s article Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media (2009) he identifies a process of initiation that users or members of a community have to go through in order to become accepted as potential dating material by their peers. This kind of screening of members is considered a highly important process as value and power are given to those members that meet and move beyond the standards of the group, which are often physically and textually based. In online dating scenarios people who are considered more valuable or well regarded in dating and social sites, tend to have less available time to be on these sites, they will post briefly and regularly and on the odd occasion will make a contribution that accrues merit in the eyes of their peers, such as an impressive new avatar, or information that is regarded as coveted by other members of the group.

It is interesting to note that the conceptualization of time in social interaction and formation of identity within dating sites are essentially different from online gaming communities. Hours spent on an online gaming community are honored and participants can accrue status points in this fashion, in an online dating context this could quite easily be construed as being stalkerish and creepy, there are no points of recognition of status to be gained in this fashion. (Mayra, 2008, Pascoe, 2009)


Outside of dating and sexual contexts selection of group members and formation of online communities and identities are often selected according to value systems rather than bodies. Dawson (2007) discusses how the content of online religious participation can be selected according to specific tastes. There is a smorgasbord of online religious practice available in every conceivable religion imaginable. There are some online groups which are set up by established organized religions, and there are those that are much more casual in their approach to online worship. These groups are not constrained by physical space, they do not need to be performed within a specific religious building, participants can engage in active religious worship from the comfort of their own home, nor are they inaccessible to those within different time zones etc.

Traditionally, religious groups have reaped economic benefits of millions of willing participants and worshippers. Churches, Temples, Ashrams and Mosque s have been built from the revenue obtained in this fashion. Physical space and the creation of sacred and holy spaces have been integral to the practice of religious worship for thousands of years they constitute some of the most spectacular examples of architecture and design in the world. Historically, churches and places of worship have dominated and defined the character of town centers as places of communion with god and neighbor. Religious participation online has changed and decentralized forms of worship; there are no fixed physical spaces in online communities. Money is less likely to be retained within a worshipper’s local community, but instead will go to the facilitator, or creator of the site who may or may not be affiliated with one of the traditional religions. Anyone can set up a religious cyber community.

Religious ceremony, rituals and participation can occur online, within a community regardless of location, using a cyber space rather than a physical space.
We do not have to be physically present, our bodies can be placed in the safety of our own homes, meaning that we are not in any immediate danger of religious persecution, should we choose to find a community of like minded individuals. Religion on line helps facilitate meaningful engagements with peers with the same faith, regardless of location, these are sometimes experienced as an extension of worship in a building of worship or it can form the basis of religious worship and community.

In conclusion, the understanding of the how dynamics such as our bodies, time and space interact with each other are integral to understanding the way social forms and understandings of identities will emerge. Each online community and region will often have its own set of norms and regulations, which is often integral and central to the construction of identity and socialization on a group and individual basis. The emergence of the internet as a main form of socialization in everyday contexts and its ability to sustain itself as a community completely independently re-contextualizes the way the average citizen within the 21st century will experience community, socialization and formation of identity. A comprehension of guidelines within a community and those established by the W3C are important for users of the internet to understand as they reflect wider cultural and social differences.


Bibliography
Attwood, F. (2007). No Money Shot? Commerce, Pornography and New Sex Taste Cultures. Sexualities, 10(4), 441-456. doi: 10.1177/1363460707080982. In E-Reserve.
Brooks, G, and various commentators. (2008, July 8). Counting Rupees: Korea bangs. Joystiq. Blog Post. (Archived by WebCite).
Gilbert, B. (2008) “Web Content/Social Networking,” Blog, Corporate Power in New Media. Archived by WebCite.

Dawson, L. L., & Cowan, D. E. (2004). Introduction. In Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet (pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge. In E-Reserve.
Frans Mayra. (2008). The Real and the Game: Game Culture Entering the New Millenium. In An Introduction to Game Studies (pp. 118-151). London: Sage. In E-Reserve

Hyatt, N (2008, May 23). What Makes Gaming Social? GigaOM. Url: (Archived by WebCite).

Mansell, R. (2004). Political Economy, Power and New Media. New Media & Society, 6(1), 96-105. In E-Reserve.

Micah M. White, “Facebook Suicide ,” Adbusters, June 4, 2008. Archived by WebCite.

An Nguyen, "The Interaction between Technologies and Society: Lessons Learnt from 160 Evolutionary Years of Online New Services ," First Monday, 12(3). (Archived by WebCite).

Pascoe, C.J. (2009). Intimacy in Mizuko, I et. al. Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. Available from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/book-intimacy.

Resnick, P “Pics Censorship and Intellectual Freedom FAQ” August 4, 1999 http://www.w3.org/PICS/PICS-FAQ-980126.html
Shafi, “Can a Virtual Community be any different from the experience of a Real Community?” Incoherent Thoughts, December 13, 2005. Archived by WebCite.

Don Slater. (2002). Social Relationships and Identity Online and Offline. In Leah A. Lievrouw, Sonia M. Livingstone & Sonia M. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media (pp. 533-546). In E-Reserve.

Williams, R. & Edge, R. (1997). What is the Social Shaping of Technology?. The Research Centre for Social Science.

null