Campbell says that, “From this review of research, it can be
argued that religion online functions within a network or interactions, in
which relationships, structures, and patterns of belief become highly
malleable, global, and interconnected”. Global and interconnectedness are the
main points I want to bring to your attention from this quote. I think that
everyone in dean’s circle recognizes the rise of globalization together with
the rise of internet and media usage. This isn’t something new, we see it everyday.
But while the interconnectivity of people around the world continues to
increase, the actual connectedness of people declines. Yes, teachings from a
Rabbi or a famous evangelist can instantly be viewed in real time. Yes, you can
even view a sermon instantly on your phone. With all of this though, I think
something is lost. Back when we were discussing the idea of the public (I think
we were at Schulz’ house) Frank mentioned that there was a lack of emotional
depth on facebook. I don’t remember the exact example, but the idea was that
someone could post that their grandfather had died, and while it was sad, it
wasn’t ANYWHERE close to seeing that person cry or the look of anguish in their
eyes. You can see the evangelist, Rabbi, or sermon but you can’t feel it the
way you would if you were actually there. There is a detachment that viewing
something through a screen brings. I think this detachment is a lack of
presence, or ‘other’ that we have been talking a lot about. I want to talk more
about this and about how the magic circle works (how strong it is?) through a
screen.
The second thing I wanted to mention was Campbell’s idea of
shifting authority. She mentions that, “Scholars frequently argued that new
media potentially create new classes of religious authority as web master,
moderators, and bloggers begin to assume positions of power and prominence
online…”. This makes me think that there
may be a shift to a younger generation as the authority in virtual religious
communities. (This is completely based on an assumption that an older
generation doesn’t use the internet to the same extent as our generation). I
would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I totally agree with, "while the interconnectivity of people around the world continues to increase, the actual connectedness of people declines." I find that there is an intimacy that is lost when the way to the means is sped up. It's like cooking an instant ramen bowl versus making ramen from scratch (noodles and all). You don't get to savor the individual aromas from crafting all of the components that go into the dish before it is joined as one. The internet and its 'supplemental' role to the religious is the instant ramen-readily available, pre-packaged in its entirety, and supplemental (but not necessarily a healthy substitute) to your diet.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the power of the 'magic circle' behind the screen, I wonder if psychologically there is a difference in interactions we have online versus in person. What receptors in the brain go off when a virtual chapel is witnessed versus when you are in a chapel session in person? How is scholarly content absorbed online with a one time point-click-grab versus when it is studiously studied in a classroom? I feel the magic circle is stronger and more impactful on the individual when there is a non-virtual context. By no means am I negating the power of the magic circle online, but there is a lack of involvement of the senses when we experience something in the virtual world. It's supplemental, but by no means a substitute.
I feel the shift of religious authority in the virtual world can be both rich and frightening. It is so easy to post something and look as if you are an expert. I'm not sure if Yahoo does this anymore, but in the ask forums you obtain points for giving the best answer to a question. A hierarchy in the point-based system then becomes a factor in who you will give more credibility to. This makes it easy for a troll (someone that's basically an internet a-hole) to influence others, even if they cite sources (which some might not even bother looking at). I feel structure in religion would then become
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...a more pick-and-choose experience, more so than ever.
ReplyDeleteAwesome thoughts, Mallayana. Roland Barthes, a photographer in the early 1900's, hated photography. His belief was that the essence, beauty, tragedy, and meaning in life is in its transience.
ReplyDelete“What the Photograph reproduces to infinity has occurred only once: the Photograph
mechanically repeats what could never be repeated existentially.”
Capturing, preserving, and distributing experiences is against the nature of existence itself. He likened photographs to death in a powerful way:
“When we define the Photograph as a motionless image, this does not mean only that the figures it represents do not move; it means that they do not (i)emerge(i), do not (i)leave(i): they are anesthetized and fastened down, like butterflies.”
I absolutely agree that 'something' is lost through screens, and it is life itself, but not in the way that phrase is typically understood. You can see the pastor in the online video, maybe someday very clearly and lifelike, but your being in the presence of that pastor when he gave that sermon, the solitude and in-communicability of your experience, is robbed from you.