ALLIE ❤ HARTHas anyone done a good theorizing of modern social internet space? I attempted an Ahmedian reading in college but it's hard enough just deciphering internet *location*. I know danah boyd does good work with internet affordances but I don't remember her speaking so much on space in particular.
For example: Two people can go to the same internet *location* (facebook.com) but have mutually unintelligible experiences—literally, not in the same language. Are these the same spaces? Different spaces? Where is that space located: The URL? The server location? Do we consider the Facebook page for NYC as belonging to NYC-as-space, or is it distinct? What about photos posted at a party? Are those posts also "at" the party, even though they can be viewed by non-attendees?
"You do you" is Eu-gen-ics.@u2764 Perhaps these very questions are an invitation to examine whether the very tool of "space" as metaphor for non-physical environments is the best we can do in thinking these experiences?
@beadsland I like the metaphor of "space" because I consider it a prerequisite for "body." But of course there are other models.
@u2764 There's a reason my critique, the other day, of "space" (as a model) hinges on an interrogation of "embodied membership". Our Lakoffean urge to anchor in metaphors of embodied cognition can lead us astray.
Which is not to say there isn't an embodied metaphor that will better grok and grapple online whateverthisis, but perhaps that metaphor rests in something bodies do, rather than where bodies are.
Annemarie Mol might be helpful here.
@beadsland I'm not so worried about cognition as affect: pain, trauma, violence, and the prevention thereof. There is no violence which is not embodied, imo. So if we want to address violence, we must address bodies. And if I want to talk about how a text might touch me, there must be, at some level, a site of that touch.
Kate@u2764 @beadsland I'm following this conversation with an interest in media geographies and the space part of social space. Nothing to add, just reading and agreeing. Also @Tdorey's images of streets and parks yesterday as ways of thinking about this community space.
@katebowles @Tdorey @u2764 Looking to analogues between online whateverthisis and physical spaces, or perhaps more properly, physical *places*, is always useful.
The question is, are such analogues simultaneously univocal? Or can we say that online whateverthisis is, quite usefully comparable to space, while also holding that online whateveritis, itself, is not best understood as space in any meaningful sense?
@beadsland @u2764 @Tdorey The theory that helps here is placemaking. Space isn't what's "out there", the passive backdrop to our agency. Even more so, place is social, co-constructed, relational. So it's what we make together. And then there's the path we make together, by walking it.
@Tdorey @u2764 @beadsland But yes, some elements of online whateveritis can't just anchor in metaphors of offline space. Some are their own thing. Metaphors limit us as well as expand our thoughts.