On blogging: for Ruth and AJ

Two nights ago I had a fascinating discussion with my friends Ruth and AJ. The conversation sprang from Ruth’s assertion that “Facebook is evil!,” a pronouncement I found interesting in light of my strong Facebook dependency. We three talked around the topics of Facebook, blogging, and internet socializing for over an hour, and by the end of things I was moving over to Ruth’s point of view.

I started out arguing for the utility value of online forums in relationships: they provide creative outlets, ways to track and keep up with friends distant and close, platforms for sharing our ideas and personalities with individuals and the world at large. Ruth was coming from the perspective of a grade school teacher who has observed a movement among young people towards conducting more and more of their social life through online networks rather than the traditional methods of personal interaction and conversation. It was a winding and intricate discussion, but I will try to summarize some of the observations we agreed on:

- Online personality is highly controlled and filtered: By their nature, Facebook and other blogging services invite us to construct a very specific image of ourselves that we present to the world. I don’t control all of the information that is posted about me online, but within the confines of my profile I choose what images of me appear, what ideas and opinions are shared, and what conversation is conducted on my “wall”. It’s a much safer mode of relating to people compared to an evening among friends where my awkward sense of humor may be exposed or the conversation may turn in a direction that challenges or surprises me.

- Online personality is often anonymous: On forums where individuals are identified only by a screenname there is a general pull towards the lowest common denominator. Witness how often comment chains on youtube and even on technical forums devolve into crude, inane cut-down contests. I recently posted a question to a web design forum, and after a short time, the list of replies began to read as follows: “Stupid troll.” “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “Actually, Fesser, you don’t know what *you’re* talking about.”

- By the same token, the internet provides a safe environment in which to be silly and/or vulnerable. Much of the youtube phenomenon has been fueled by videos in which people dance before their webcam as though it were their bedroom mirror. I think that this is part of the reason for the popularity of blogs as creative outlets–it is easier to be vulnerable and expressive in a general online forum than, say, around a dinner table with friends or in a coffee shop full of strangers. Heck, I’m enjoying this luxury right now. On the web, when we write content for anyone and everyone, we are writing for no one in particular. I wonder what is lost in this bargain? This is not to say that blogs should not be used for this purpose (I think it is one of the highest applications they can be used for), but perhaps we should be wary of stopping there. If I write a poem or a story that I feel is worthy of sharing on the internet, maybe I should go further and share it with my friends and family, and in person.

If there is a conclusion to draw from our conversation, it might be that internet relations are simply less personal than many other mediums (letter writing, sharing a meal, even talking on the phone) and that the greatest evil in blogging or any online socializing would be to make it primary in our lifestyles. These formats are useful tools for expression and communication, but they do not constitute community and fellowship–they don’t come close. This is the risk that I think Ruth perceives for her students (that internet modes of relating will supplant traditional modes of intimacy) and the reason for her passionate pronouncement against Facebook.

Maybe I’m taking the whole question too seriously, but I find these observations a useful reminder as I begin a blog of my own, and with them in mind, I wish to establish a few guidelines for the use of this blog. These are not hard and fast rules but rather an invitation to myself and to whoever visits here to try to transcend the medium as much as possible–to make the blog more personal:

1) Whenever possible, I will address posts to someone(s) in particular–this way I will be forced to keep in mind a specific and real audience that I’m writing for.

2) Whenever so inspired, readers should join the conversation. You are not required to be passive observers here. Whether in the comment field, on your own blog, or at dinner some evening, please feel free to respond to what you find here. Critique, proof-read, tangentialize, complement (above all, complement!), but don’t let this blog end with my own pontificating.

3) Whenever I feel like it, I will keep the content unfiltered. Ha! I know how impossible this is. I can’t help but control the content here and so project an image of myself, but I will try to be as honest as I can. This way you can trust that I’m really as wise, attractive, and humble as I appear here.

4) At all times, I will not stop here. This blog is primarily intended to share the current happenings of my work in video production, but it will also be a creative outlet and a personal opinion forum. If I develop a poem or a thought that I think worth sharing, I will not keep it within the relatively safe confines of this medium. I’ll use the tool provided here for what it’s worth, and then I will take the idea, the words, and the conversation back into the real, complicated, and rewarding world of personal relationships.

Thanks for reading. I hope you’ve found some opinions here that interest you and that perhaps you’ll respond to. I certainly don’t have it all figured out–just most of it.

Chris

*footnote: many of the ideas in this post stem from a very interesting youtube video that my friend Clark shared with me. The video addresses the web2.0 movement as it manifests in the world of youtube. It provides a fairly balanced discussion, and it valorizes many of the principles that I have questioned here (i.e. the value of an anonymous format in which it is easier to be silly and/or vulnerable). Check it out here if you’re interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU