Session 12 Response

This week’s readings were very interesting. They were connected but all over the place for me. Each connected to many different theories, analytic tools, and themes. I found myself asking many different questions about virtuality, embodiment, human emotions, and Internet meanings as I cogitated each paper to paper. One overarching question for the three readings is: Can the digital/virtual research remain relevant? Gershon mentioned in her book introduction that her research was compiled in 2007 to 2008. As a researcher how do you stay true to your research but stay relevant so that your book still matters?  The Internet is constantly changing and evolving; thus, who you are during these changes really matters as well. I think what was interesting about the book introduction is how little emphasis is placed on the respondents being Millennials. The digital age means has different meanings for Millenials than it does GenX or Baby Boomers.  I wonder if the book is constructed around how Millenials specifically construct media ideologies and idioms of practice or if it’s structured to answer these questions for everyone who uses media.  In one line Gershon writes, “So I am writing about people who were still in the process of figuring what relationships might all be about.” I hope in discussing these college students she gives agency to the students and doesn’t allow these brash generalizations about early adulthood relationships.  As a research studying modes of communication via breakups, I find it careless to assume your informants are still just “figuring out relationships” based on their age. While I was reading this introduction,  I thought about SL media ideologies and idioms of practice. What are the media ideologies for SL? Do members share the same ideologies? Are they different?

It was nice to read more of the ethnographic work of SL in Chapter 6.  From a structural perspective I feel like Boelstorff tried to fit way to many topics into this chapter. It felt like a “catch all” chapter of themes that maybe didn’t fit elsewhere. I also wonder if maybe he had so much to say on certain topics, thus didn’t really expound on them fully which made the chapter feel disjointed. I was really intrigued by his discussions of sexuality and sex in SL. For BDSM, he doesn’t really explain how this is embodied in SL avatars? He makes very clear examples to “normal” sex, cyber sex, lap dances, etc. but for BDSM I don’t understand why it’s so popular in SL. BDSM is directly correlated to domination and bondage, how can you dominate an avatar?  They have agency and free will to do whatever they want. Moreover, the avatar can’t feel, so is this all imaginative pain and domination. With cyber-sex this is different because of actual world stimulation but with BDSM, there is physicality and partnering that is required to feel that it’s BDSM. 

The discussion of platonic and romantic relationships deserves discussion in class. The virtual vs. actual world piece for relationships (especially romantic relationships) is really troubling to me.  Boelstorff keeps referencing the virtual house and states that it is an actual virtual house; thus, shouldn’t the relationships be actual too. I would be interested in understanding how SL users manage this virtual vs. actual world balance but still mourn the loss or end of a relationship as if it were real life one. For example, in romantic relationships via SL were the members were married in their actual life, is this adultery? If experiences via SL are consummated with wedding ceremonies how are these experiences not real/actual? Would you need to divorce an SL spouse if you no longer wanted to be with them? Do SL relationships have the same challenges as real world relationships? As a user spending a lot of time in SL, I would be very confused on how to identify and engage with a person unwilling to share their real life and presenting themselves as someone different. There’s no way to engage in SL without being who you are in real life because our experiences & personalities are shaped by who we are in real life no matter who we present ourselves online. There are some interesting interpersonal ethics that should be discussed here (“catfishing”, pedophilia, cybersex, etc).

Lastly, the Banner’s article is relevant to my mini-ethnographic project. She considers PatientsLikeMe and the ways cyberbiosociality, politics and gender create a similar place for patient illness experience that the doctor’s office does. I appreciate the reference to embodiment of pain shifting form the person to statistical and digital schemas online. I think Banner would agree that it is important to consider if these types of digital forms are truly “patient-driven” medicine or rather them medicalizing illness experiences through online media. Banner mentions the fetishization of data and information but would I believe it would be benign to go further and consider if patient driven medicine is also fetishizing the patient. These types of for profit website push a model of patient exploration, discovery, and community with like minded individuals but also really make a living off of these patient’s suffering as an ill person. PKM and others don’t survive without the willing participation of these patients that navigate the website constantly reminded of the goals and missions of PLM engineer and developers.