The NYTimes briefly references how i relate properties of an environment to notions of architecture and i thought i’d expound on this since folks have asked. First, these ideas are based on language used by Lawrence Lessig when discussing four points of regulation in “Code”: market, law, social norms, and architectures.
So much of how we structure our social interactions is dependent on our understanding of an architecture. In the physical world, this element is constant. There are certain properties of the physical reality that allow us to assume certain social norms. Without technology, i assume my conversation is ephemeral. I can visually and audibly determine who overhears me. That said, generations of fiction have been created out of the problems with this assumption… what if the walls are listening? what if someone is in a secret passage way and can see you? what if?. But in a truly dialectic form, those questions only emerge because the majority of time, you understand who can see/hear you.
Everything changes online. The architectures of the digital world are constantly shifting and being redeveloped. Technological determinists tell us to get over it: everything is public. But the digital public is so conceptually different than the physical public. People don’t yet know how to operate in a space where everything is persistent, searchable, etc. More importantly, we’re engaging with people *now* and can’t even imagine what new architectures will form 10 years from now that will repurpose our current presentation into the future in a way that is quite different than we expect… even in the “public web.”
This is why Friendster intrigues me. Friendster is an example of that shifting architecture. The majority of users on Friendster don’t have blogs (or journals) and aren’t really present on the web. They are the Internet users who thrive on searching the web and using email. Thus, they are naively negotiating what it means to put up public data. They are forced to face some of the questions about how shifting architectures impact their presentation of self.
At the same time, Friendster also shows how you cannot take sociological and anthropological theories generated in the physical world and expect them to work online. 1950s sociologist did not imagine that the foundation of their work, the underlying architectures, would shift. They assumed this to be constant and thus most of their work needs to be re-conceptualized with architecture as a variable.
And this, this is why i’m having fun.
right on. i do have to pick a small bone about physical architectures, which you mention are constant. they actually change quite a bit — and with significant effects — but just at a much slower pace than digital architectures. one of lessig’s examples is the fence. in a given place, the rise of fences over time — an architectural adjustment — changes the social context. the presence of a physical barrier around one’s property has significant physical, psychological, legal, and social effects. and in a given time, of course, physical architectures, and their social ramifications, change quite a bit across places and cultures.
I guess the distinction i made is that the _properties_ don’t change, even though the actual structure changes. In your example, we know that we can construct fences. We know that we can build new walls. This inevitably changes the social environment, but the changes occur in a set of what’s physically possibly. In the digital, that’s extended far more.
When it comes to communication, there are a lot of physical properties that we take for granted. Audio distance, visual awarness of who is present, our ability to adjust the loudness of our voice, etc. We try these same things online and are stunned to find out that the architectures change. What was assumed in 1986 Usenet is no longer the case, and persistence is still a shock.
My concern is that as interesting as architecture is as a metaphor, it is also very spatial. Relationships are about an endless process of discovery, rediscovery and very fluid movements among a variety of often complex emotions and activities.
I do appreciate this web log and Danah’s effort to deepen the dialogue about on-line networks. I find Friendster fascinating but also wonder about the strength and durability of the interactions that make up the complex environment of on-line networking.