Such a deceptively ‘simple’ and harmless looking question. Perhaps it is my state of mind as an social analyst that provokes further discussion of this innocent sounding query. That of I’ve been reading far too much Foucault and Freud lately. Whatever the cause this little ditty got me thinking.
I’ve been trying to define and formulate an idea of the ‘for whom’ Web 2.0 with all its rather fabulous appendages and little forays for distraction, socialising and simply ‘hanging out’ opportunities really applies.
The popular media is all too easy to dismisses Web 2.0 as the domain of the ‘digital generation’, the ‘ipod generation’ or simply that these are individuals who have ‘grown up digital‘ and labelled as ‘N-Geners’ as American Don Tapscott’s latest tract would have you convinced.
But isn’t it more complex than just those who are very visibly riding the wave and enjoy the high of Web 2.0? Let’s face it the most technologically savvy and geeky have networks of links that expand beyond their own peers and include amongst others their ‘less techie’ family networks and work contacts. Are these not exactly the kinds of audience and passengers that Web 2.0 is all about. Intuitive technologies, peer-to-peer content, collaboration and a veritable ‘community’ of exchange that reveals facets of fascinating information. Some of these information shares are even useful and distinct, and some that just encourages you to put ‘stuff on your cat’.
It is clear that the present moment of Web 2.0 has appeal for a specific subset of the population. A population that is used to, and is encouraged to have a reciprocal relationship with technology. But it doesn’t just end here. Reciprocated actions by these individuals entices other connections, networks of links and encourages even the most non-digitally inclined to sign up, log in and well tune out. Or at least to engage with the very technologies that seem so ‘daunting’ and with which they may not necessarily feel familiar with.
Where the critics wades in is how this is all formulated for the already ‘in-tune’ and digitally inclined to the exclusion of others. Inequality during the reign of the first ICTs waaaaaay back in the 1990s was frequently structured around the home and work life. These were further sectored into the gendered spheres of the domestic Vs vocation space and those ‘girls and boys’ technologies.
More recently the ‘open’ nature of new social media – by which I mean Web 2.0 as well as the array of devices that are designed to connect, play, work, rest, etc with (yes the iphone) have and are continuing to level the playing the field. We’re not stuck in the 1990s now!
And though these interfaces are a part of the existing chips of the computer board of everyday life, this does not mean that they offer only a limited appeal to the most technologically minded and enterprising. Surely the wonder of Web 2.0 and other technologies is that they do not seek to be exclusive and that they have innovated social interactions and continue to articulate new points of contact that celebrate both difference as well as shared interests.
So perhaps the question instead of, ‘Who are you?’, should be ‘Where are you headed?’ Indeed, as the consumption of new media technologies is both shaped by and continues to shape social relations we would be lost, or at lest very lonely without a twitter, or our daily cup o blog to point us in the ‘right’ direction and thats something everyone can enjoy!
About Dr Mariann Hardey
I hold the position of Lecturer in Social Media Marketing at Durham Business School. I also spend too much time enjoying social technologies, media+ stuff. That'll make me a Geek then. And a gal.
