Aug 31 2007
Are Cyberspace Relationships Underrated?
This post was inspired by sulz’s post and Root’s post .
Communication is a two-way activity between two or more people. Communication is the method by which people share their ideas, information, opinions and feelings. There are various modes of communication, some of which are used more commonly than others.
Oral communication has long been our main method for communicating with one another. The essence of art is the communication of important ideas and other knowledge through symbolic (non-verbal) languages. But speech and and body language are only a portion of communication.
Communication is the transmission of information (messages) between a sender and a receiver using any of the five senses. And It is estimated that 75% of a person’s day is spent communicating in some way.
Whether you like it or not, cyberspace has become the new frontier in social relationships. People are making friends, colleagues, lovers, and enemies on the Internet. The fervor with which many people have pursued this new social realm is matched by a backlash reaction from the skeptics. Relationships on the Internet aren’t really real, some people say - not like relationships in the real world. Socializing in cyberspace is just a cultural fad, a novelty, a phase that people go through. The critics say it can’t compare to real relationships - and if some people prefer communicating with others via wires and circuits, there must be something wrong with them. They must be addicted. They must fear the challenging intimacy of real relationships.
Relationships
The key word here is “relationships.” Examine the ways by which people communicate, connect, and bond with each other and to compare IPR (in person relationships) and CSR (cyberspace relationships) according to how people connect via the five senses:
- hearing the other
- seeing the other
- touching the other
- smelling the other
- tasting (!) the other
The first sense, hearing involves the basic skill for language, which isn’t necessarily auditory.
The second sense, is sight. In cyberspace gender, race, and whether you are “attractive” or not - are irrelevant. Everyone has an equal voice and is judged by the same standards: ie. their words.
The third sense is touch. Almost anything you can do with someone in cyberspace you could also do with them in-person, simply because they can be sitting side-by-side with you in front of the computer while you do it. However, the reverse isn’t true. Everything you can do with someone in-person can’t be duplicated in cyberspace and that’s a big disadvantage for CSR.
The fourth and fifth senses are smelling and tasting. Smell brings us very close to the other and stirs up powerful emotional reactions. Consider the scent of perfume, hair, clothes, skin.
The sense of taste brings us closer still. It’s the sensation of lovers. One might say that smell and taste are rather “primitive” interpersonal sensations, but both are the cornerstones of deep intimacy - maybe because they are so primitive, so fundamental. On this level of relating, a CSR once again falls flat.
Sensory Integration
However, truth be told, we rarely connect to the other person by one sense alone. At the very least we see and hear simultaneously and during more intimate relating we see, hear, touch, smell, and maybe even taste. The complex and subtle interactions among all that sensory input far exceeds the interpersonal meaning we can extract from any one of them alone. Eyes, ears, skin, noses, and tongues - all interconnected in marvelous ways that science still doesn’t fully understand. Those clusters of sensations make for relationships that are highly robust in emotion and meaning.
Presently in CSR the five senses tend to be dissociated… and that’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the rich interpersonal qualities afforded by the five senses is lost, resulting in human encounters that may run a bit on the stale side. But as Internet technology improves, auditory and visual sensations will be more effectively coordinated with each other.
On the other hand, extracting out vision or voice creates unique ways to interact with others. E-mail and typed chat can be rather fascinating styles of developing a relationship. The sensory limitations can fuel the imagination and lead to creative patterns of communicating that are not found in IPR.
CSR also allow for unique combinations of text, audio, and visual relating that usually are not possible in-person. You want to hear but not see people, read their text and see them but not hear them, or see and hear them but not bother with text? We can do that online - and there will be situations in which presenting some aspects of relating but not others is desirable. Source
Making Friends in Cyberspace
Many attest that CSR relationships are just as “real” as IPR relationships and can be just as fulfilling. The additional dynamic is that in text relationships one participates in the relationship while simultaneously observing oneself in the relationship (”seeing” oneself on screen). Moreover, you don’t have to worry about how you physically look or sound to other people when you say something. And you don’t have to worry about how others look or sound when they say something to you.
What do you think? Is it true that in person relationships are intrinsically superior to relationships in cyberspace? Or might relationships in cyberspace in fact be underrated?
25 Responses to “Are Cyberspace Relationships Underrated?”
yes, i believe ipr is incomparable to csr. you can have online relationships, but it may not be as genuine or fulfilling as one in real life. does that mean one shouldn’t have csr? not necessarily; csr can lead to ipr, can’t they? we know britgirl’s story.
to me, csr is alright if both parties have the right intention and are not putting on a relatively spurious personas (like a girl pretending to be a guy to have a csr with a another girl, who’s actually a guy). that said, ipr is still the best way to go if we really want a relationship to really work.
I am a feel touch smell hug kind of person and therefore to me cyber relationships can never be as fulfilling. But yes, they can be something…if I have been communicating with sosmeone regularly through his or her blog or she or him has been comunicating with my on my blog…and they disappear…yes I will miss them. Because that is what happens in cyber space, people disappear because real life beckons them. And then there is the big question of taking it forward…does one meet them in real life? I have never done so, but almost did when I almost went to a blogging camp. I guess in the next year or two I will probably attend a blogging camp and meet some of the people. But in a sense they will be strangers. If one has to start a friendship in real life, one has to start from zero. Thats what I think. The cyber world can be deceptive. To imagine one can know a person through the internet is an illusion. I can tell so much about a person by the tone, the expression, a movement, the look in the eyes…in cyber space its all hidden.
the flip side of the detached senses is a little difficult to describe. for one, savvy internet users will be able to combine hearing and seeing. for two, communication is something that happens in a medium, but that is seperate from the medium.
i can smell someone without opening a dialogue with them (the subway reminds me of this regularly), and i can have a dialogue without smell. I am not suggesting that relationships can exist without touch, smell, or taste indefinitely.
Long Distance Relationships are always predicated on being localized at some point. The internet is one tool for bridging a temporary gap. There are gorgeous civil war letters that make it abundantly clear that LDR’s are not a new phenomenon.
Cyberspace is a filter. other cultures have other filters for courtship. (the “hole-in-the-sheet” section from Midnight’s Children comes to mind). I would not have pursued my own relationship if i did not have multiple cues to the person on the other side of the curtain. Video is very important, even when chatting, for being able to read reactions. Chatting or email consists of considered responses. Reactions are visceral, and comparing reaction with response is a fascinating way to understand another person.
Sulz used an illustration of how extremely mal-intended people can use CSR to project a false persona. Nita also pointed out that the cyber world can be deceptive.
I counter with the fact that even in IPR there are those who project false personas and that we can be deceived face to face as well.
I do agree and I’m sure most will concur that when a relationship like marriage is contemplated in person verification is required to test chemistry and validate authenticity. Over 80% of the communication humans rely on is non verbal and this is why video is an important component of CSR. Setting that aside, in either case it’s up to those in both kinds of relationships to authenticate the cues that Adam refers to.
There are many kinds of CSR relationships. For example, there is this relationship described by Jennifer and there are is another example provided by Joni. Without doubt the cyberspace communication between business partners/dear friends is authentic; the relationship is “real” and, mutually satisfying, although the two may never meet face to face.
Adam has brought food for thought to this discussion. Indeed communication is something that happens in a medium, but remains separate from the medium and LDR are not “news”. Like he says cyber space is a filter and other cultures have other filters for courtship.
Nita says: If one has to start a friendship in real life, one has to start from zero. I counter saying that CSR are real and they start from the same point.
To be clear I believe the debate over whether or not in person communication is a better launching pad for a relationship than cyberspace communication is has been superseded.
“Whether you like it or not, cyberspace has become the new frontier in social relationships. People are making friends, colleagues, lovers, and enemies on the Internet.”
I believe cyberspace relationships are underrated. And I’m not convinced that all in person relationships are intrinsically superior to all cyberspace relationships.
Thanks to all of you for sharing your viewpoints.
the context i’m talking about false personas is in which the most basic details about a person is falsified. in ipr, we can fake our characters, but not our physical beings in general. (exceptions can be someone who has undergone a sex change operation and has not confided that information, though, for instance.)
of course there will be exceptions to the rule. just as every ipr relationship can differ, so can csr.
@sulz
Thanks for returning and clarifying. There are exceptions to every rule and when it comes to forming relationships whether face to face or online caution is always advised. Ahem - when i first met you online you gave me this good advice.
We might need to step back now and just as what *relationships* are anyway. My parents sent Christmas cards to people that they had not seen for 40 years. Or spoken to. In my book that is weird. So what is a relationship? Is it someone we see regularly? Is it some one we do not see now? Is it something with someone we haven’t met (yet)? How the heck should I know. But this is exciting stuff. Incidentally if anyone knows of a … no sorry. Delete that.
What do you do or say when a person whom you know only via the internet - say via blogging - has a death in the family and is grieving? I have sent her an email to offer my support and tell her that she can always drop me a line if she feels like it, but I don’t “know” her well enough in that I can just call her up like I would a friend, you know? It’s a strange situation. I don’t just want to leave a comment on her blog, as others have done either. It would seem kind of… I don’t know… routine? I always leave comments on her blog - it’s comedy and I like it - but now, it doesn’t seem appropriate somehow.
Today Adam made a post that I really appreciated reading. Perhaps those who are interested in continuing this discussion might like to read it http://archgfx.net/blog/2007/geek/relationships-vs-teh-intarwebs
Links to definitions of relationships from squiddoo
Never Eat Alone (and Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship at a Time)
Keith Ferrazzi did an excellent job of explaining the power of relationships in business.
relationship: Definition, Synonyms and Much More From Answers.com
relationship ( ) n. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association. Connection by blood or marriage; kinship
Wikipedia’s definition of Relationship
Wikipedia does a great job at providing a very clinical definition of Relationships.
Relation Definition :: Online Etymology Dictionary
The Online Etymology Dictionary is an excellent source for the history of words. I did a search on the root word, “Relation” and found this.
Types of Relationships
“Did you know that 40% of marrying age America is choosing to stay single? People are losing faith in marriage, creating alternatives, choosing to stay lonely. And they admit they’re starving for soulmate companionship, but just don’t believe in it anymore.”
@Root
Here’s your open invitation to describe what “relationship” means to you.
I am adding letters to our list of people who have any kind of meaningful online experience. The more I look at this the more I see it happening. It is a real thing. And a part of all us bloggers lives.
@letters
I have also been in the same situation and I did exactly what you did. I did not post to the blog. I sent an email offering empathetic support.
IMO far too often people confuse empathy and sympathy. In a situation of sympathy one person tells a sad story to another and two people go way feeling sad. In a situation of empathy one person tells the sad story, the other compassionately listens and supports without taking on the sadness.
Too often we say ridiculous things like going back to work will help you get your mind off “it” to grieving people. What utter drivel. Grieving is a process. There are many stages of grief and the process is not linear. One’s emotions swing back and forth and all over the map when they are grieving. The course the grieving process takes is based on factors like the quality and state of the relationship between the departed person and those who are left to grieve. Moreover, if the grieving process is cut short or if the grief is denied then it remains unresolved within and will be triggered when the next death occurs.
When I see that corporations are granting protracted periods of time for paid maternity leave and only 3-5 days for death in the family I shake my head at the craziness of this. Obviously it takes time to introduce a new being into a family and obviously it takes time to say good bye family member who has left.
No one who is under the stress of grieving ought to be expected to “put on a happy face and get back to work.”
P.S. I’m wondering if the blogger would like to have some of her faithful readers become guest writers while she goes through this process. It may help her if the stress of researching and writing blog articles are not on her plate right now.
Well, as someone who is not only a blogger but who met my husband of four years online, and know many more people who have met online, I can only be grateful for the internet (and cyberspace). People are still endlessly intrigued when I tell them my husband and I met on-line… and how we met. I think a relationship is is defined by the two people in it and depends on the people in it. Whether they are on or off line.
I know there are plenty of idiots on-line. There are an equal number of idiots off-line. Cyberspace, to me is just another avenue to connect with and meet people - and the beauty of it is that you meet people you may never have met had you stayed in the off-line world only. You get to share other experiences.
And I believe that to thrive, an online relationship has certain elements - just like an offline one, only more. More trust, more willingness to be open to share of yourself, and a willingness not to take yourself too seriously. You might meet your one and only on-line. Then again you might not.
And you have to be happy with yourself (read not desperate, not looking for someone to fill a need in yourself. This is a biggie, IMO). Plus, while a relationship may start on line, it needs to move offline - either by phoning or meeting to “test if it’s for real on terra firma.” That’s what we did anyway. Since we resided in different countries for a couple of years without the internet we probably wouldn’t be together. I know countless others who have met in cyberspace or online and are now either friends, in a relationship or married.
Blogging - Do I have a relationship with the people who read my blog and share their experiences with me? In some ways, yes. But I would call these more interactions, good interactions and regular interaction - as only some of their lives are shared. But my relationship to them is via my blog. If anything happened in their lives I would feel happy or sad for them, depending on what it was.
Here I would say that while we might think that some things people say may be ridiculous - I ‘d rather cut them some slack. It’s hard to know what to say to a person we know well when they are suffering. It’s even harder to know what to say to a person you’ve never met but still interact with, as a blogger for example. I believe that people mean well and say what they believe would help from their own experience or understanding. They may not understand what the grieving process is if they haven’t experienced it themselves… in which case they wouldn’t be saying something inappropriate. It may not be word perfect but it’s what they can offer.
Back to cyber…I find Facebook (yes I am on FB) helps me connect with people I know, but also connect with new people through going to group events, get togethers and so on. Social networking at its best, moving between online and offline and back online. With some, my relationship will deepen as we get to know each other and form a connection. With others it will remain casual. The point is I am connecting with people I’d never have met otherwise… it’s fun and enlightening. And it includes making amazing new business relationships.
So are cyber relationships underrated. Probably. But they are here to stay. Soon it will be impossible not to give them the respect they deserve.
“And they admit they’re starving for soulmate companionship, but just don’t believe in it anymore.”
Not that it’s wrong to seek companionships but maybe they are seeking when they should be giving. If you want friends, companionship, be a friend or companion.
Also, if they don’t believe in a soulmate/companionship/marriage how on earth can they ever attract it?? They would sabotage it every single time. Question of saying they want something while the signals they send to the universe says “I don’t believe in this, I don’t want this.” So they are actually repelling the companionship they say they want.
hi brightfeather - start with your last suggestion first: if you take a look at her blog you’ll see it is unique and doesn’t lend itself well to guest blogging.
think i’ll wait another day or so and send her another mail.
i have made a real-life blogging friend here in hamburg by accident. i was at work and stumbled upon his blog and wrote an email to my home account saying, “cool blog! - bookmark it!” - and 10 minutes later got a mail from him.
in my haste i’d actually sent the mail to HIM!
@britgirl
Welcome to the discussion.
We share the same point of view that you have expressed this way:
May I add that in any relationship there are points of convergence and divergence? People in a relationship can have differing opinions and responses to the opinions of the other, misunderstanding can occur, feelings can be hurt, tempers can flare. And as we cannot usually hear or see one another in CSR misunderstandings and conflict can get blown out of all proportion very quickly. What may begin as a small difference of opinion, or misunderstanding, can escalate within moments and become a major issue that threatens the continuation of the relationship or even brings it to an end.
I’d like to suggest that in any relationship there is a need for another element that should be introduced early on in the relationship and it is a mechanism for handling conflict. IMO when we do not put such a mechanism in place in CSR then we can find ourselves wishing we had.
@britgirl
Speaking of online relationships, summer is such a busy time of year and I’ve really missed chatting with you.
We all love it when other people agree perfectly with our points of view and I find that you and I are frequently in agreement.
“And they admit they’re starving for soulmate companionship, but just don’t believe in it anymore.”
You made me smile and chuckle because your response to this quote was exactly the same as my own. We are all prepared to take from relationships but how often and how much are we willing to give to them?
Apparently, many people have no knowledge of self-fulfilling prophecy, self sabotage and the antidote to them ie. the law of attraction. More’s the pity.
@letters
Now that I have visited the blog of the grieving blogger I can see that the guest blogger notion would not work.
I’m delighted to hear that you have a real life blogging friend in Hamburg. You may think your meeting was accidental but I don’t. Those who seek to have meaningful online relationships send their request out and the universe provides the connection.
@brightfeather,
You most certaintly may add that - because I absolutely agree :). No surprise we are in agreement. It’s very easy for a relationship that takes off in cyberspace to be subject to misunderstandings.
You’re absolutely correct in that without the benefit of seeing the person and reading their body language and hearing their voices the smallest thing can become a huge thing if you’re not careful. Which is why phoning needs to at least supplement email and meeting needs to happen not too long afterwards. That’s if we’re talking romantic relationships. Understanding, understanding, understanding… friendship, friendship, friendship. And always cutting more than a little slack… something we don’t always remember to do.
Brightfeather….I’ve missed you as well… we’ll catch up soon
I feel that in many good relationship the mechanism for handling conflict tends to evolve over time. It requires trust and security. One of the things both parties need to acquire is a feeling that a bad thing does not mean the imminent end of the relationship. That takes time to understand.
Next up is communication. Both parties need a mechanism for expressing stuff that makes them unhappy. They need to feel heard. In my experience, I think the final ingredient is that even the row is not or should not be a license for inappropriate, immature, or even frightening confusing behavior. People need a framework to explore misunderstandings and heal divisions quickly. But different people have different internal mechanisms and some work to different emotional timetables. After a bad thing I need a bit of space. But usually I bounce pretty well.
I think some of this is acquired in either a positive or negative way by our formative years. Please do not get me started on how conflict was dealt with by my parents. But BF is right. It is a key ingredient to nurturing a relationship through the early stages. Unfortunately in many potential couples it disintegrates into a struggle for control and power. That can be the agenda in many arguments.
Finally in some ways the very process of getting to know new people can be difficult because it holds up a mirror to the self. Some people who become engaged in that process find out that what they see in themselves is not good. That can lead to introspection and sadness.
Just my 2 cents. But regular readers know this is not my er forté
@Root
I want to thank you for the time and energy you put your response. I appreciate the fact that you shared valuable insights.
As you have observed all relationships are based on trust and when relationships are new they lack the foundation that we can rely on to support us in times when things go badly. That’s why I think coming to an agreement early on in the relationship about how to handle future conflict is a good idea.
Having a row is not ever a license to abuse or confuse or to attack the other communicator but we all have feet of clay. Hence when our communication partner has been hurt by our words we can’t always count on them to be mature in their responses. And as Britgirl as emphasized we must be prepared to cut them some slack - lots of slack.
Although cyber communication is laced with urgency I’ve learned that when (1) I’m offended or (2) when I have caused caused offense the best choice for me to make, in the first instance, is a simple “ouch that really hurt” followed by a time-out. In the second instance, when I know I have offended another, I will follow-up with an immediate clarification and where appropriate an apology. However, once one has clarified and apologized it can be very trying to remain patiently waiting for the other party to finish their time-out and to communicate again.
I can’t say that I know much at all about power struggles in relationships. I can only say that if I feel the other person is power tripping or putting me down I will speak up and if no correction is made then I will head for the hills.
Yes it’s true that everyone we meet is our mirror and I have often been saddened when I saw my own behaviour reflected back to me.
Namaste Root {she bows}
[...] Related blog posts: Are Cyberspace Relationships Underrated? [...]
[...] of entering into relationships on the internet. Jennifer responded, Sulz had some thoughts, and now BrightFeather has responded as well. Looks like my response is long [...]
[...] blog posts: Take the Test: How Sensual Are You? Male Body Odor: Vanilla or ? Are Cyberspace Relationships Underrated? Online Relationships: Internet Dating Relationships and Messages Relationships: Good [...]