Cyberculture: For best results, use as directed.

Bell’s chapter, “Community and Cyberculture” seems to perpetuate the dichotomous thinking that cyberculture either fosters or harms RL community. He identifies Wellman and Gulia’s concern with the “Manichean” nature of this debate, but then he discusses it in terms of the two opposing camps. He seemed to reason that he would be going deeper to the fundamental question of what is a community, and he finds that the inclusive concept of Bund (which is basically community) describes cyberculture. This seems to be avoiding the question of establishing a middle ground on the bigger question of whether or not cyberspace is good for RL society. I think certain time-tested principles are relevant here. The first is “All things in moderation.” This shows that cyberculture does have its importance in what it can contribute to society, but too much of it will lead to problems, including withdrawal from RL society. Not having cyberspace limits our society’s ability to expand our types of relations with each other. The second principle, or aphorism, is “Wherever you go, there you are.” This alludes to the organic and natural condition of cyberculture, as suggested by Rheingold. Again returning to McLuhan’s description as media as “extensions of man,” we can see that cyberculture is an extension of RL culture. As in natural evolution, it is the result of environmental conditions—here the importance of and reliance upon technology in society, as well as the need for efficiency. This is the culture that is the most appropriate for the life we as a society have come to value. I think that people who are against cyberculture should focus their energies on improving RL culture to have it have a higher appreciation for the community values they see lacking in on-line communities. For example, why do we have HMO’s who are so driven by efficiency and profit interest that they do not allow for a doctor to spend much time with a patient? That is impersonal, and face-to-face interaction means nothing (or something bad). Or why don’t we emphasize the importance of music, art, and sports programs as integral to education? These are interactive forms of RL communities, but they are being devalued for information, which is easily obtainable from the “information super highway.” Cyberculture is just a reflection of the societal need for efficiency over the development of relationships and personal well-being. To blame technology for these problems is technological determinism.

To unite these two aphorisms, “Wherever you go, there you are” seems to suggest that yes, cyberculture is as valid a culture as any other because we go there and we are still ourselves. “Everything in moderation” validates the designation of cyberculture as a community, while adding the caveat that, although it is a part of us, it shouldn’t be all that we are as people. It is not inherently bad, but it is how it is used. Yes, it fosters certain values, but those values are important to us. By creating programs that foster other values, we are balancing the overimportance the Internet places on information.