The evolution of the global and virtual (Web-based) societies of the twenty-first century

In this module, we focus on the evolution of the global and virtual (Web-based) societies of the twenty-first century. We begin by defining globalization—what it is and how it has developed through the increased sophistication of telecommunications and large, international financial systems. We then explore the individual's role in global society, and how roles in poor societies differ from those in rich societies. For example, we'll explore how the physical distance between these societies affects individuals' feelings of responsibility and involvement.

We will then investigate a new and growing society that is essentially built on physical distance—the virtual society of the Internet. In our explorations we consider two important questions: How do we interact as individuals in a Web-based society, and how can our knowledge of sociology help us to understand this world better?

Module 4

Module 4: The Individual in the Global Society

Topics

What Is Society?

Globalization and the Chasm between the Rich and Poor

The Individual in the Cyber-World

The Presentation of Self on the Internet

What Is Society?

The very definition or perception of society has changed over the last century, as its elements and functions have changed. One hundred years ago, few individuals left the community in which they were raised. Experiences in other countries, even cities, were read about in novels or discussed as tall tales and exciting adventures by those who had the rare experience of travel.

As the twentieth century wore on, jet travel and telecommunications expanded the community we all live in. We became quite familiar with the experiences of those outside of our hometown, first through motion pictures and television and then through the Internet. Cultural experiences were delivered to us through these media and broadened our view of the world and our global society, but these are virtual—not personal—experiences.

Virtual living through the media has become more common in the last decade, and much of our knowledge and many of our experiences are influenced by this virtual world: It influences how we define our identities, develop our opinions, and exercise our values. Unlike children in the early 1900s, today's children are influenced by far more than their homes, neighborhoods, or schools. This new, global, and often virtual society is a brave new world that shapes us all as individuals and affects the way we influence and are influenced by the lives of others.

Globalization and the Chasm between the Rich and Poor

The increased ability for countries and cultures to interconnect is one facet of globalization. Is there more to globalization, though, than just increased global contact and awareness? In his article on the topic, Vidya Kumar (2003) argues that countless definitions and explanations for globalization exist across multiple disciplines such as economics, sociology, law, and political science. He believes that globalization encompasses:

Interconnected economies that depend on corporate ownership rather than national identification, for example, the impact of Coca-Cola or McDonald's throughout the world. Many corporations that were once simply American, such as Coca-Cola and McDonald's, are now powerful multinationals and have economies far larger than the economies of entire nations or even of groups of nations.

Laws, mores, or social patterns that groups of people share based on cultural experiences (such as ethnic, religious, or lifestyle choices) rather than national identity, for example, the impact of religion on the global culture.

Local decisions, strategies, and choices that are made to influence global rather than local issues, for example, purchasing products that avoid increasing the deforestation of the Amazon jungle even though they may be more expensive than comparable products and do not directly affect the economy of one's local town.

Global practices that have specific effects on local societies, which essentially is the reverse of the previous point. For example, some corporations market goods to one society that are affordable because they are manufactured in other societies where child labor is used.

The overall sense that the world is becoming homogenized into a singular culture. For example, there is a sense that certain principles such as social integration, or even democracy itself, should be embraced by the world as a whole and not just by certain nations.

So, what does globalization mean for the individual in society? On one level it allows multiple, distinct, and vastly diverse cultures to come into closer contact than at any other time in world history. This close contact has put multiple value systems in conflict, thus affecting the interaction between nations and thus between individuals.

In 2001, the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research completed a 20-year study of the values of 65 societies around the world. The project, called the World Values Survey, collected data from groups that represent 80 percent of the world's population. Ronald Inglehart and Wayne Baker (2001) analyzed data from this survey to examine the relationship between a society's cultural values and the impact that globalization has had on each society.

Inglehart and Baker's analysis demonstrates the difference between the values of rich and poor societies. These societies differ most noticeably in two areas: (1) their response to authority and (2) their emphasis on survival versus self-expression. Poorer, less-developed societies are more traditional in their response to authority. These societies are more male-dominated, religious, and more respectful of authority in general. They are also more focused on survival, and thus place less emphasis on striving for political participation, individual rights, and self-expression.

Inglehart and Baker's article is interesting because it probes the potential connection between globalization and "value stability," and leads us to consider the following questions: Does increased economic development change the cultural values of a society? Do differing perceptions of what should be valued in society exacerbate the culture clashes between the rich and the poor in the world? Do the values of wealthier nations include an ethical responsibility to those who are less well-off?

As we noted in our earlier discussion of modernization, inequality is built into the modern, industrial economic model through the division of labor. Some individuals fulfill a role at the top of the model, and others fulfill a role at the bottom. The true challenge of globalization is to bring the advantages of free market capitalism (increased industry, affordable goods, widespread availability of services) to undeveloped societies while limiting the disadvantages (dehumanization, commoditization of the worker, unequal status among workers) (Cassel, 2001).

Throughout much of the twentieth century, nations moderated the freedom of corporations through federal regulation and national laws. However, as corporations become increasingly international, governments are increasingly dependent on corporations to bring capital into their communities, so corporations are allowed to regulate themselves. This puts more responsibility in the hands of the corporate leaders to consider the needs of the world's citizens. The readings we will be discussing in this module explore the responsibility of the individuals at the top of the global system (the role of business ethics) and the impact of globalization on the lives of those at the bottom (through the example of "imported" caregivers).

The distance between us—combined with the differences between us—makes it difficult for the average individual to address global inequality. In some cases, making changes to help others would have a significant impact on our current lifestyle. In other cases, changes are already occurring around the world that force changes to our lifestyle (development in Asia and growing competition for oil, for example). Nations have long had to deal with the dilemma of choosing between the economic welfare of their own people and the economic welfare of the world at large. When our community becomes global, we are so distanced from those at either end of the spectrum that the leeway of the rich and the suffering of the poor are both invisible to the average individual. Engagement in the global process takes more effort than engagement in our local communities, but may be more necessary as globalization continues.

The Individual in the Cyber-World

Globalization is one example of how our modern world distances us from the consequences of our everyday behavior. Distance, though, has become a theme in our everyday lives, not only because of globalization, but also because of the Internet. Telecommuting, distance education, chat rooms, and instant messaging are all examples of how we experience life from a distance. In many cases, we interact online with our friends and co-workers (through instant messaging or telecommuting), but in other cases (distance education, for example) we form relationships with people that we never have and perhaps never will meet in person. This virtual classroom, for example, is a mini-society where no one meets face-to-face. Does this society function by the same rules and norms as other societies, or is there something about the cyber-world that changes these norms?

There is more than one way to analyze this question. Using the tenets of postmodernism, we might look at the concepts of the original versus the copy. Past theories and observations of social norms are based on face-to-face interaction, what we might call real interactions. Virtual interactions, such as those scripted on a television show, are based on these real, face-to-face interactions. In this sense, the copy is based on the original.

The Internet, however, has created a society that is based on new types of interactions. For example, witness the development of Web pages where individuals share information about themselves through the images and links they choose to place on their sites. This information is not solely shared with close friends and families, but virtually the entire world. The sharing of personal blogs (Web-logs or online diaries) is similarly a new way to introduce oneself to the world.

These new forms of human interaction are not based on past face-to-face methods of introduction. They are virtual introductions to people that we may come to feel intimate with without any true interactive contact at all. This type of virtual relationship is not a copy of an original, as scripted relationships are. It is a new type of interaction that may ultimately lead people from the virtual to the real if face-to-face interaction follows. People now use the style of communication learned on the Internet in their face-to-face interactions, turning the original-to-copy relationship backwards. These new communication methods are created in a pseudo-world, and real actions are then copied from the non-real actions.

For example, the more we become accustomed to communicating with text messaging, the more abbreviated our face-to-face communications will be. In this way, we may use fewer words and share fewer inner feelings in our face-to-face communications because the use of text messaging as changed the way we approach conversations. This leads us to copies of copies—no originals—which is a view that many post-modernists began to theorize about decades ago. Originally, post-modernists associated this concept with the dissociation and anomie that came from urban living as compared to small town living. It is carried one step further in the new cyber-world community of today.

Thus, the simulated world of the Internet, video games, reality TV, and so forth becomes the norm in our culture. For some, interactions in this world have become more frequent and more real than interactions with family, neighbors, and others in our physical community. What kind of impact does this have on the individual in society? How do we define the self in this virtual world—or does the self stay the same but the methods of presentation simply change?

The Presentation of Self on the Internet

In 1959, the sociologist Erving Goffman wrote The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life—a book that had major influence on the sociological view of the individual in society. In it, Goffman created a new approach for understanding the social world, dubbed the "dramatalurgical approach." His approach differed from that of most modernist sociologists because he did not try to explain the world via social institutions or functions. Instead, he used one-on-one social interactions as his unit of analysis.

Goffman looks at each of these one-on-one interactions as little dramatic scenes (hence the term dramatalurgical) in which people assume specific social roles and follow the "script" for these roles. In other words, Goffman argued that society works because people know what roles and interactions are expected of them, and they fulfill these roles properly. We learn how to behave in our neighborhoods, schools, work sites, shopping centers, and so forth by observing roles and interactions as we grow up and then by following them as adults. These patterns help to keep society flowing "properly," efficiently, and effectively.

In his studies, Goffman focused on what happens to individuals when they find themselves in the presence of others. What do we reveal about ourselves in these situations? How much of what we reveal is intentional? Goffman believed that we communicate in two ways. The first way is by what we "give" during the communication through intentionally selected words, actions, and physical presentation. The second way is by what we "give off," which encompasses the unintentional cues we give others through facial expressions, body language, and the unconscious choices we make in our conversations.

Goffman went into great detail about these parallel communications. He spoke of how most of us have "back-room" and "front-room" behavior. In the back room, we are more casual, open, and free with our presentation. Conversely, our front-room presentation is more formal, scripted, and guarded. Think about the difference between how you act in the privacy of your own home with a close friend or family member versus how you act when you are in a meeting with your boss.

Sociologists have returned to Goffman's theory to help explain the presentation of self in our new virtual world of the Internet. Do we behave as if we are "in the presence of others" when we are communicating online? Do we use our back-room or front-room behavior? Clearly, we do not have many of the same cues that we use in face-to-face interaction to make our choices. We do not necessarily know the gender, age, or ethnicity of the people with whom we interact on the Web. We also cannot respond to facial expressions or verbal inflection in Web conversation, making some types of communication (humor and irony, for example) more difficult. So, how does one define his or her virtual self and how might it differ from one's true self (if it differs at all)? How do we manage our presentation of self on the Internet?

Katherine Walker explores Internet identity through an assessment of individual home pages. She asks the question, "Is the Internet self as free, unanchored, and rootless as some would argue, or is it simply the traditional self gussied up with new technology?" (Walker, 2000, p. 101). The ultimate question when analyzing the presentation of self on the Internet is: Are we presenting a different self at all? Walker examined hundreds of homepages and then followed up by surveying their developers.

Walker's analysis revealed a great deal about presentation of self on the Internet. One of her most interesting findings was the fact that individuals view the Internet in two distinct ways: either as a communication conduit or as a live community. More specifically, she found that some individuals set up their home pages to communicate with friends or family members from afar, thus using the Internet much the way they would use the telephone or the mail to share information with their loved ones. Others, however, use the Internet to introduce themselves to the World-Wide-Web-based community, which they view as a living society peopled with community members checking in for a visit. The home-page developers' intended presentation of self (what they "give") differed depending on their view, but the ultimate look and feel of their sites (what they "give off") differed very little.

Throughout this module, we will further explore the definition and presentation of self on the Internet. A key question in these explorations is whether the presentation of self on the Internet will ultimately change our presentation of self in face-to-face interactions.

References

Cassel, D. (2001). Human rights and business responsibilities in the global marketplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), pp. 261–274.

Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2001). Modernization's challenge to traditional values: Who's afraid of Ronald McDonald? The Futurist, 35(2) (March/April), pp. 16–21.

Kumar, V. S. A. (2003). A critical methodology of globalization: Politics of the twenty-first century? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(2) (Summer), pp. 87–111.

Walker, K. (2000). It's difficult to hide it: The presentation of self on Internet home pages." Qualitative Sociology, 23(1), pp. 99–120.

· This article discusses the skepticism over free trade and the results for American workers.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/opinion/sunday/our-misplaced-faith-in-free-trade.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22%7D&_r=0

· A list of reviews of Thomas Piketty’s New Thoughts on Capital in the Twenty-First Century video. http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/25/dialogue-ten-so-far-worthwhile-reviews-of-and-reflections-on-thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-wednesday-focus-march-26-2014/

· A video by Thomas Piketty discussing his formula for economic inequality, an existing, worsening condition with radical possible impacts. http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_capital_in_the_twenty_first_century?language=en