Forewords
Few months
ago, I read a very captivating study in Journal of computer-mediated
communication called “The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone Separation on
Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology”. This article was written by Russell B.
Clayton Missouri from the School of
Journalism of University of Missouri; Glenn Leshner from Gaylord College of
Journalism and Mass Communication of University of Oklahoma; and Anthony
Almond of the Media School of Indiana
University.
The three
authors introduced the study by explaining that the mobile phone has become a
ubiquitous part of everyday life, and (…) one of the most popular devices for
communicating with others. They explained how consistent this device is
consistent constituent with the primary social functions of the
household/landline telephone, and how it helps to strengthen bonds among family
members “while also expanding the user’s
“psychological neighborhoods” and facilitating “maintenance of symbolic
proximity” (Wei & Hwei-Lo, 2006)”. These devices facilitate
relationship maintenance, but in the meantime, the physical and emotional
attachments humans have developed with the mobile phones have simultaneously
increased (Srivastava, 2005).
This study
examined the effects on self, cognition, anxiety, and physiology when iPhone
users are unable to answer their iPhone and when users are distanced from their
smart phone devices, while performing cognitive tasks. Indeed, recent research
indicates that such attachments are associated with greater feelings of anxiety
when users specifically for heavy smartphone users (Cheever, Rosen, Carrier, Chavez,2014).
I am an I-phone
user, but I cannot call myself heavy user, because I don’t suffer from
nomophobia (no mobile phobia), and therefore, that was not the main reason the
study captivated my interest.
Actually, at
that time, when I read this article, I was moving from my former place in the
East-end suburb of Glasgow, a working class area with its big mall, its 24/7
opened TESCO to a very new place closer to the City centre of Glasgow, just
between the Barras antiquities market and the Green park of Glasgow. This is a perfect
place for someone who runs during the week end, and who buys second hand
furniture and old “bibelots”.
I certainly
did not know yet that I would live in such a nice and dynamic neighbourhood.
But, I do remember that while I was looking for the flat on different website,
when I was checking different criteria that would satisfy my needs, I found
some similarities between my “search for a new community” and this captivating
study on the Extended iSelf”
I wondered
“what if the Community I am looking for is an extension of myself? Is it
possible that the new place I intend to live in could define what I am as the
use of a smartphone with all applications, e-mail and messenger boxes, social
networks can impact and define users’ behaviour and personality? Am I looking
for a nice flat with central heater, low rent and low council tax,
one/two/three bedrooms; or Am I defining an extension of myself like an
extended C-self (Community-based self).
Myself connected
Identities and our sense of self emerge from our
earliest experiences and are based initially on what others do to us and for us,
and what we can do for/with/to the others (A. Gilchrist, M. Bowles and M.
Wetherell, 2010). This is affected by social and cultural context. We also have
choices. But what come first? The impact of the context on ourselves? The
choices - good and bad - we make? The experiences we go through? We can
actively decide to reassign things, depending on changes in circumstance or
personal preference…as we delete previous applications on our smarphone, for
new ones; as we skip from one social network to another one. As we interact
with a wider range of people, cultures and institutions in our communities
(wider or smaller), we become aware that we have a number of possible identities
and are able to combine. So do the many applications we got on our smartphone.
That is what we first look for, when we move to a new place: we expect the new
community/new place to provide the balance of interactions and social
connections that will define us.
This
equilibrium is powered by connections and interactions within the society and
the communities, and is reflected in identities. Identities provide safety,
solidarity and shelter. By understanding the fluid and strategic nature of
identities, individuals use connections to promote their shared interests and to
define themselves. They come together in communities.
What makes our community ‘liveable’? and what makes our profile
“likeable”?
Off course, Identities
are malleable, complex and multiple. They evolve according to the changing
needs and opportunities facing individuals and communities. But the question
still remains. Are our identities and affiliations influenced by the context,
and the community? Or do we influence our context? Do our status evolve as
easier as a simple click on our Facebook profile? Do our status really matter
in the wide range of interconnectivity? Let say I move in a new and dynamic
neighbourhood, with new stores, a dense cultural and associative life, the kind
of place you are very proud to live in: What will you give to make that
community a better place?
We express
our identities differently in different settings, drawing on the most useful,
comfortable or least risky dimensions of our identities for a given situation. We
need to compare the way we interact with people through the many social network
we “pretend” to be involved in, and the way we interconnect with our
neighbours. Where are we more involved? Where do our Commitments go first?
Online or in our communities’ streets? There might be adjustments to prevail. The
impact of our “connectiveness” online on our interactions within communities is
inevitable. However, we cannot ignore the fact that people actively construct
their own sense of self-identities to enable them to lead ‘liveable lives’.
Neither, we cannot ignore that people construct their sense of themselves through
many online profiles and perform identities as they would like them to be.
From a regular
point of view, our I-selves and C-selves should be free from risks, with easy
and plentiful opportunities for positive, meaningful interactions; crucial to
people’s well being and aspirations. Community is a vital aspect of a person’s
sense of self. Just like identities, communities are complex and fluid.
Traditional views of community have tended to emphasise belonging and locality,
suggesting common purpose, continuity and unity. It influences what individuals
do, how they position themselves and how they make sense of the world. It
shapes their habits, attitudes, what they take for granted and how they relate
to others – all features that are central to community life. However, many
studies have also emphasized our internet impact on our human interactions.
(Cf. John A. Bargh and Katelyn Y.A. McKenna, New York University, 2004) “The Internet is fast becoming a natural,
background part of everyday life. In 2002, more than 600 million people worldwide
had access to it (Manasian 2003). Children now grow up with the Internet; they
and future generations will take it for granted just as they now do television
and the telephone (Turow & Kavenaugh 2003).”
In 2004, the
two authors have already showed the limits of Computer-Mediated Communications interfering
“the “bandwidth” of social communication, compared to traditional face-to-face
communication settings (or to telephone interaction, which at least occurs in
real time and includes important nonverbal features of speech)”. Sproull &
Kiesler (1985) considered CMC to be an impoverished communication experience,
with the reduction of available social cues resulting in a greater sense or
feeling of anonymity. This in turn is said to have a de-individuating effect on
the individuals involved, producing behavior that is more self-rcentered and
less socially regulated than usual.(J.A.
Bargh, K.Y.A. McKenna, 2004)
The
democratization of smartphones and explosion of applications store have utterly
evolved our connections: Smartphone-mediated Communications are different from
Computer-Mediated Communications. Before, people used to stay at home behind
their screen communicating with a worldwide community, instead of talking to their
neighbours next door. Now, they can “share” with their neighbours how they
connect with the worldwide community, how they position themselves, promoting
their I-self within an intangible community.
They are
multi-faceted and spread across different levels of community – from families,
friendship networks, villages, estates and neighbourhoods, to towns, cities,
sub-regions and nations. Some communities are based on common interests and
experiences, such as work, hobbies, shared memories, life stage or social
status. People still refer to familiarity, continuity and shared moral
frameworks in defining their communities, but also appear to value change and
diversity as a source of creativity and learning. (A. Gilchrist, M. Bowles and
M. Wetherell, 2010)
Nowadays, we
cannot ignore how far the Smartphone-mediated Communications have evolved the
way we connect within our community. Communities are less about shared values
than shared applications. Almost all smartphone applications rely on a wider
community. For example, you can compare your running performance with people
miles away, living on another continent; you can share the pictures you took in
your neighbourhood, or during your last holidays with some stranger, instead of
showing to your relatives. This “numerical” convergence of interests and
“likes” and “hashtags” manifests itself in what become a new model of
communities of ‘identity’ or ‘interests’.
I deal with my Community as I deal with “Applications store”
People get
involved in communities in many different ways: for example, as parents, as
campaigners, as residents of a particular neighbourhood or members of a faith
group. Interactions with others shape how identities are performed, and
different dimensions of people’s lives intersect to produce different
experiences in performance and perception. (A. Gilchrist, M. Bowles and M.
Wetherell, 2010). Power differentials, dominant cultures, legal status,
economic position and discriminatory practices may all affect chosen, perceived
and imposed identities. They draw people together in common cause or thrust
wedges of privilege and prejudice between communities, perpetuating historical
divisions or generating new schisms.
Common sense
suggests that people’s attachment to locality is what matters when it comes to
getting involved in neighbourhood activities. Home is an important source of
identity for many. Understanding more about how identity and locality
interrelate for particular people at particular moments in their lives will
help us to meet some of the key challenges in community policy and practice.
Despite the assumptions in current political rhetoric around ‘localism’, the
places where people live are not the only basis on which they connect. Whatever
people’s circumstances, community identity remains important as a source of
solutions to the problems they experience. It indicates who can be called on
for help in times of adversity and provides the rationale for joint activities
and decision-making. (A. Gilchrist, M. Bowles and M. Wetherell, 2010)
As I was
going through the different website specialised in letting, I was very
surprised to see how many different information/criteria/benchmark you can add
to specify your research. Besides the regular criteria such as the location by
post code, the rent you can afford to pay, the property type, the type of let
(long term, short term), the number of bedroom, whether it is refurbished,
whether there is (someone else’s) furniture. When you have selected the flat
you might want to visit, you can check what there is nearby and how far from
your future flat, such as schools, bars, restaurants, groceries, health clubs
and Gyms; cinemas; transportation services and train station.
But the more
interesting is that some letting websites provide even Area Information
(sourced by UK Census) about the average age of the population living nearby
(like 60% of 20-29 years old), the nature of tenure (owners; rented flat;
living free); the employment rates (are there more full-time, unemployed, part
time, student or inactive).
To be fair, I
did not really consider those analytics, I just wanted to be closer to the City
center, not to do miles and miles to have a good “pint” in a nice bars, not to
take the train every single day. But, do other people really consider those
criterion, as they are projecting themselves in the new community. It would be
understandable that student wants to live in a place where there are more than
50% of 20-29 yo or some parents to live in area where there is a lot of “kids”
to play with their own….but what about living in a 50% unemployed area.
I have got on
my phone several kind of applications, in a way that if someone who does not
know me looks into my phone, that person will find apps for social network like
Twitter, facebook and LinkedIn, Instagram; for running; apps for international
and very serious newspaper such as the Guardian, New York Times, Washington
Post; apps for cooking; for puzzle and words puzzles; apps for banking and
finance…Am I really using all those applications. You already know the answer.
But I want
them to define my “sophisticated” taste. Isn’t it the same for the place and
the community we live in? We want our friend to visit our new place and to find
on their way the Green park where we potentially run every two days after work;
the antiquities market and its lovely café where we are assumed to go every
Sundays, to buy old fashioned Edwardian furniture and have a very healthy
brunch; the nice bars with live music.
We want our
friend to guess (or not) what kind of life we supposed to be
living in those areas. If we had the opportunity during council meetings to decide what kind of shops, utilities, or store can settle in
our neighbourhood, It might be very conceivable that we will ask for shops and
utilities we would not even need…like my many apps I just forget they take
space in my storage phone.
To go further
Alison
Gilchrist, Mel Bowles and Margaret Wetherell (September 2010), “Identities and
Social Action: Connecting Communities for a Change” in Identities, Community Development Foundation, 49p.
John A. Bargh,
Katelyn Y.A. McKenna, (2004),“The Internet and Social life” in Annual Review of
Psychology, New York University, n°55:X-X, 23p.
Russell B.
Clayton, Glenn Leshner, Anthony Almond, (2015), “The Extended iSelf: The Impact
of iPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology” in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, International
Communication association, 17p.
Cheever,N.A.,Rosen,L.D.,Carrier,L.M.,&Chavez,A.(2014),
“Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device
use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users”, in Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290–297
Srivastava, L.
(2005), “Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour”, in Behaviour and Information Technology,
24, 111–129
Manasian D. (2003), “Digital dilemmas: a survey of the Internet society” in Economist, Jan. 25: 1—26
Sproull L,
Kiesler S. (1985), “Reducing social
context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication” Management
Sciences, 11: 1492--1512
Turow J,
Kavenaugh AL, (2003), The Wired Homestead,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Wei R. , &
HweiLo, V. (2006), “Staying connected while on the move : Cell phone use and
social connectedness in New Media & Society,
8, 53–72.
Photography
Credits
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire