Continuing from where the first networked community post left off, we started off our second session by considering the implications of the assertion by networked culture that tightly knit communities become a barrier to expanding our social horizons. How problematic can this end up being when identity is crafted through fidelity to a community; finding a community to belong to, that imparts an ideology and recognizes you, that holds you and cares about you?
Next we looked at the concept of Extended Identity. Extended identity involves a process of five steps:
Looking inward
Trying on
Projecting
Getting feedback
Redefining
In a networked culture, your extended identity can be part expression, part mythic projection. Consider how many teenagers actually photoshop their profile pictures before posting them on Facebook. In looking at their extended identities, you can get a sense of who they would like to be; and that identity is not so much a “fake person” online, but rather online you see the person they either see themselves as, or aspire to be, in the “real world.” This identity is put out into the network and receives feedback that can be processed away from the moment. Over time, the characteristics projected that are received positively become less mythic and more real life. In essence, if it gains approval from the network, it is incorporated into the teen in their daily life. Considering the sheer amount of feedback possible, and the variety of far-removed people in the network providing it, this begs the question of whether caring adults should be affirming the characteristics being projected, or identifying the positive characteristics in the “real” teen that are missing in the extended identity.
While all of this is going on, teenagers are answering texts at 3 in the morning for fear of becoming irrelevant or removed from importance to the network. From the outside it can appear to be addictive or compulsive behaviour. Furthermore, they consciously or unconsciously begin presenting a curated self for a network audience that includes an emphasis on privacy, making sure only their best side is seen. Over time, you start to see them using same pose(s) in every photo.
It seems to boil down to a process of personal branding; what is their individually unique style and value to the network? How do they remain important and valuable in a network economy? Theologically, this separates God’s calling from the mix – and runs in direct opposition to the question “what is my value in the economy of God’s grace?” This personal branding is now 24 – 7 – 365 … in networked culture, we are always on, or we risk becoming irrelevant.
This is what passes for belonging in the network. Teens get a sense of belonging from where they’re known. Proximity in and of itself does not create intimate community. In networked culture, it is possible to participate without the limitations of geographical boundaries; a sense that “wherever I go I can bring my friends with me.” It is not uncommon to have teens sitting in a circle on Sunday morning, completely removed in all but proximity, finding belonging somewhere else on their smartphones. The difficulty is that this removal from those in immediate proximity to experience belonging elsewhere in the network is as much a result of the reality that in church they may not be known at all.
Teenagers have a developmental need for social interaction. It is for this reason that teens tend to be on the frontline of the constant drive to take technology and turn it social. You can apparently find historical stories of teenagers breaking into telegraph offices to telegraph messages to teens who have broken into another telegraph office further away. Technology provides the potential to foster presence in absence, and to bridge the broken relationships they see lived out in society around them. Trace back far enough, and you come to the fig leaf: the first technology used to cover up relational disconnectedness (assuming you adopt the position of scriptural authority and biblical literalist).
We are becoming increasingly disconnected because of technology, mobility, and the pace of life. In seeking intimacy – the deeply spiritual search for another who knows what it’s like to be me – we encounter a faceless face-to-face society. Churches, schools, even homes are often faceless face-to-face experiences for teenagers.
And so churches today wrestle with technology … namely the epic battle between the Exclusion of Technology and the Inclusion of Technology. Or as Andrew (the presenter) describes it, “the irrelevance of relevance.” When they’re seeking intimacy in their relationships, they don’t care what your Facebook page looks like. When they’re seeking to overcome the facelessness of society, they don’t care about the technology, but rather want what it promises – the ability to connect and find intimacy.
The ability to connect and find intimacy is something promised by both Facebook and the Eucharist. Both are falling short of that promise. The bread and wine technology is irrelevant if it isn’t delivering on the promise. In church, teens are looking for communion with God and the people – the Body of Christ – but often are only finding weak connections.
As you can imagine, we all walked out quiet, broody, frustrated, and challenged … but it’s fair to note that, at least in the circle of people I continued the dialogue with over dinner, none of us were in essential disagreement with what was presented.
Dinner was a tough conversation …
What do you think about all this?
No comments:
Post a Comment