September 22, 2004
commenting on a friend's blogged notes on Poster's book 'what's the matter with the internet?'
the point that the internet is 'undedetermined' is actually taken up in feminist literature on online identity. they take the tack that online communication and interaction is informed by f2f social and cultural interaction. so the question 'is there a body on the net' actually refers to the ways in which our online participation is in fact as gendered, racialised, sexualised, ethnicised as our f2f. this is a basic point in donna haraway's book, and much of the literature i've read responding to this sort of discussion. i'm suspecting that people like stuart hall have some interesting things to say on this topic which i haven't yet hunted down (stuart hall's work on global media and black readership is probably going to be the most useful here).
perhaps the most liberatory or exciting aspect of the internet and online communication/media is the opportunity it offers simply to participate in media/public discourse which was otherwise restricted by media corporations, governments, etc. I am, however, equally as sceptical of this point: despite the loud huzzahs as to the wonderful inclusivity of the internet and online participation in discourse, this public space (or series of public spaces) seems as restricted and 'determined' as the more familiar 'old' media.
in a sideways step into discussions about public spheres, i'd add that there have always been 'counter publics' and speech and discussion from the 'margins', it was just that these were not as loud nor valued as highly as the 'official' public discussions.
and while the internet was (and is still) lauded as the truly democratic space, i argue (with a host of others) that this potential has been limited by the most familiar of factors: access to the internet and participation in online discourse is limited by financial, knowledge and time resources - class markers - which are further informed by identity markers like gender, sexuality, age and so on.
the internet is still, overwhelming, dominated by white, middle class males, carrying the concerns and interests of white, middle class males and characterised by the communication and interpersonal interaction patterns of white middle class males. It is, therefore, still overwhelmingly 'determined' by dominant ideological forces and the concerns of the 'official' public discourse as ever newspapers, television or radio were.
so, where "print objects were determinate", i'd argue the internet is similarly determinate (in that it is very much a culturally shaped space).
yet, in an irritatingly postmodern tack, we could argue that the simple moment of 'active readership' allows us - as users of internet - to simply be whomever and whatever we choose, to make whichever meanings from the material we'd like.
the response to that is, of course, that no text is without an 'imagined reader' (interpellation here we go): and that the interactions between reader, text, producer/writer, distributor, etc, carry with them extra- and inter- textual cultural influences and ideas about what it means to be human. To date, ‘being human’ has been represented online in overwhelmingly limited terms.
so, while we could argue that 'the internet' (and what a difficult term that is - how to imagine a 'singular' Internet?) is gradually becoming more accessible and seeing a more varied range of contributions (i like to think of blogs, here), it isn't actually as inclusive as we might like to think. while there are more and more people getting 'online', emailing, making blogs or websites, participating in discussion boards, using instant message programs and so on, this type of participation is still limited by the software which carries their messages, each individual's access to a computer and their ability to 'program' – to ‘make’ internet. The most influential contributions to ‘internet’ – programming, moderation on boards and websites, and so on – are still the domain of a relatively small section of the community. the internet, then, despite all its wonderful promise (which is just as wonderful as the promise of the printing press, the telephone, television, cinema or radio was – and is), is still as ‘determined’ as the ‘old media’.
These points draw on the reading I’ve done on feminist approaches to technology and online communication and culture, books like 'floating lives' (which i've ranted on about in this entry), as well as a whole forest of earlier work on other media forms.
My own research is actually focussing on the incidences of independent or minority media production. I’m interested in those moments when smaller groups and communities make use of the media. I’m focussing on swingers’ use of media because the Melbourne swing community developed using the ‘internet’ (websites and email lists) as a central point of communication. Without it, it wouldn’t be the shape it is today.
I’m interested in the negotiation of meaning and power and identity within this small community, and I focus on the ways they use various online technologies in their intra- and inter- community communication and cultural practices.
i think it's at this point that feeling for 'pragmatic' feminism/theory/scholarship comes into play. while the internet and other online technologies have the theoretical potential for all sorts of things, it's the way that they're actually used that has more relevence. hence my interest in charting these sorts of things.
