The net that binds翻译.doc

The net that bindsAndrew L. ShapiroIn the vacuum created by the decline Putnam has noted in traditional community forms, new forms of community have arisen. One vibrant movement has been through the Internet , where we have seen intense interest directed to the formation of cyber-communities . These virtual communities represent interest groups that form across physical space , transcending the boundaries and limitations of physical proximity . Cyber communities offer the appeal of relationships and bonds based more strongly on commonalities of interests and goals than by the serendipity of geographic location . Is a community that is based on cyber-space the same as previous communities that were based on face-to-face interaction ? Are there qualitative differences that should concern us or is the recent increase in the global community a harbinger of a more tightly integrated society ?One of the curious things about living through a time of whirlwind change is that it is often difficult to understand exactly what is changing. In recent years, new technology has given us the ability to transform basic aspects of our lives: the way we converse and learn; the way we work, play and shop; even the way we participate in political and social life. Dissidents around the world use the Internet to evade censorship and get their message out. Cyber-gossips send dispatches to thousands via e-mail. Musicians bypass record companies and put their songs on the Web for fans to download directly. Day traders roil the stock market, buying securities online with the click of a mouse and selling minutes later when the price jumps.There is a common thread underlying such developments. It is not just a change in how we compute or communicate. Rather, it is a potentially radical shift in who is in control-of information, experience and resources. The Internet is allowing individuals to make decisions that once were made by governments, corporations and the media. To an unprec-edented degree, we can decide what news and entertainment were exposed to and whom we socialize with. We can earn a living in new ways; we can take more control of how goods are distributed; and we can even exercise a new degree of political power. The potential for personal growth and social progress seems limitless. Yet what makes this shift in power-this control revolution-so much more authentic than those revolutions described by techno-utopian futurists is its volatility and lack of preordained outcome.Contrary to the claims of cyber-romantics, democratic empowerment via technology is not inevitable. Institutional forces are resisting, and will continue to resist, giving up control to individuals. And some people may wield their new power carelessly, denying themselves its benefits and imperiling democratic values. Nowhere are the mixed blessings of the new individual control more evident than in the relationship of the Internet to communities-not just virtual communities of dispersed individuals interacting online but real, geographically based communities.Masters of Our Own DomainsThe Internets impact on community has everything to do with a digital phenomenon known as personalization, which is simply the ability to shape ones experience more precisely-whether its social encounters, news, work or learning. Traditionally, friendships and acquaintances have been structured by physical proximity; we meet people because they are our neighbors, classmates, co-workers or colleagues in some local organization. Much of our information intake-newspapers and radio, for example-also reflects locality, and we share these media experiences and others (like national television) with those who live around us. The global reach and interactivity of the Internet, however, is challenging this. Individuals can spend more time communicating and sharing experiences with others regardless of where they live. As Internet pioneer J.C.R. Licklider wrote back in the sixties, Life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity.Virtual communities are perfect for hobbyists and others with quirky or specialized interests-whether theyre fans of swing music, chemistry professors or asthma sufferers. Indeed, these associations suggest the possibility of whole new forms of social life and participation. Because individuals are judged online by what they say, virtual communities would appear to soften social barriers erected by age, race, gender and other fixed characteristics. They can be particularly valuable for people who might be reticent about face-to-face social interaction, like gay and lesbian teenagers, political dissidents and the disabled. (Long live the Internet, one autistic wrote in an online discussion, where people can see the real me, not just how I interact superficially with other people.)The Internet also gives individuals a new ability to personalize their news, entertainment and other information. And studies of Internet use show that users are doing so. Rather than having editors and producers choose what they read, hear and watch-as with newspapers or television-they are using the interactivity of the Net to gather just the material they find interesting. This may, among other things, be a winning strategy for dealing with the torrent of information that is increasingly pushed at us.There is, in fact, plenty to like about personalization. But if were not careful, customizing our lives to the hilt could undermine the strength and cohesion of local communities, many of which are already woefully weak. For all the uncertainty about what community really means and what makes one work, shared experience is an indisputably essential ingredient; without it there can be no chance for mutual understanding, empathy and social cohesion. And this is precisely what personalization threatens to delete. A lack of common information would deprive individuals of a starting point for democratic dialogue, or even fodder for the proverbial water-cooler talk. For many decades, TV and radio have been fairly criticized for drawing us away from direct interaction in our communities. Yet despite this shortcoming (and many others), these mass media at least provide a kind of social glue, a common cultural reference point in our polyglot, increasingly multicultural society, as media critic David Shaw puts it.Online experiences rarely provide this glue. Yes, we can share good times with others online who enjoy the same passions as we do. We can educate ourselves and even organize for political change. But ultimately, online associations tend to splinter into narrower and narrower factions. They also dont have the sticking power of physical communities. One important reason for this is the absence of consequences for offensive behavior online; another is the ease of exit for those who are offended. In physical communities, people are inextricably bound by the simple difficulty of picking up and leaving. On the Net, its always where do you want to go today? Are you bored? Ticked off? Then move on! For many, this makes the virtual life an attractive alternative to the hard and often tiresome work of local community building.Some might think that the weakness of online affiliations would prevent them from posing any real challenge to physical communities. But the ability to meander from one virtual gathering to the next, exploring and changing habitats on a whim, is exactly the problem. The fluidity of these social networks means that we may form weak bonds with others faraway at the expense of strong ties with those who live near us.Few people, of course, intend to use the Internet in ways that will cause them to be distracted from local commitments. But technology always has unintended consequences, and social science research is beginning to show how this may be true for the Internet. Researchers who conducted one of the first longitudinal studies of the Internets social impact, the HomeNet study, were surprised when their data suggested that Internet use increases feelings of isolation, loneliness and depression. Contrary to their starting hypotheses, they observed that regular users communicated less with family members, experienced a decline in their contacts with nearby social acquaintances and felt more stress. Although the authors noted the limitations of their findings, the studys methodology has been widely criticized. Until more conclusive results are available, however, whats important is that we take seriously the hazards outlined in the HomeNet study and attempt to prevent them from becoming worse or taking root in the first place.And how should we do that? Neo-Luddites would likely recommend rejecting technology and returning to our bucolic roots. A more balanced and realistic response, however, calls for a reconciling of personal desire and communal obligations in a digital world. On the one hand, this means acknowledging the sometimes exhilarating adventure of indulging oneself online. No one can deny the value of being able to form relationships with far-flung others based solely on common interests. At the same time, it means not having illusions about the durability of those bonds or their ability to satisfy fully our deepest needs.We must recognize, for selfish and societal reasons alike, the importance of focusing on the local. This is where we will find a true sense of belonging; shared experience, even if not ideal, creates a sense of commitment. This is where democracy and social justice must first be achieved; getting our own house in order is always the first priority. The Net must therefore be a vehicle not just for occasional escapism but for enhanced local engagement-online and off.净绑定由普特南在传统的社区形式注意到下降造成的真空，社区的新的形式出现。一个充满活力的运动已通过互联网，在那里我们看到了强烈的兴趣导向的网络型社会的形成。这些虚拟社区代表的利益集团，形成跨越物理空间，超越国界和物理距离的限制。网络社区提供的关系和利益共同点的基础上，比由地理位置偶然的目标更加强烈债券的吸引力。是一个基于网络空间与以前的社区一样的，这是根据基础的社区面对面的互动？是否有质的差异，应该引起我们的关注或者是最近在国际社会增加对社会的更紧密集成的预兆？关于通过改变时间的旋风生活好奇的事情之一是，它往往很难准确地了解正在发生变化。近年来，新技术给了我们有能力改变我们生活的基本方面：我们交谈的方式和学习;我们的工作方式，娱乐和购物，甚至我们的方式在政治和社会生活的参与。世界各地的持不同政见者使用互联网来逃避检查并得到他们的消息出来。数码婆娘发送运送到数千通过电子邮件。音乐家绕过唱片公司，把他们的歌曲在网络上直接下载的球迷。日间交易搅动股市，购买证券鼠标的点击和销售网上分钟后，当价格跳跃。有一个共同点，这样的发展基础。这不仅是我们在如何计算或沟通的变化。相反，它是一种潜在的根本转变，是谁在控制- 信息，经验和资源。互联网是允许个人作出，一旦被政府，企业和媒体的决定。到前所未有的程度,，我们可以决定什么新闻，娱乐和我们接触到的人，我们应酬。我们可以用新的方式赚取生活，我们可以采取更多的货物集散控制如何，而我们甚至可以行使政治权力的新的学位。个人成长和社会进步的潜力似乎是无限的。然而，是什么使这个权力的转移- 这控制革命- 这样远比化工技术乌托邦的未来主义者所描述的真实的革命是其波动性和缺乏注定结局相反的数码浪漫主义的主张，通过技术的民主权力是不是不可避免的。制度的力量正在抵抗，并将继续抵抗，放弃控制权的个人。而有些人可能会运用他们的新权力不慎，否认自己的利益和威胁(原词imperiling不存在，校正为原型imperil。)民主价值观。没有其他地方的新的祝福个别控制的混合比互联网的关系有目共睹的社区 -不仅仅是 “虚拟社区“的互动在线，但分散的个人实际，地理基础的社区。掌握自己的领域互联网对社会的影响做了一切已知的数字作为个性化的现象，这是根本的能力，塑造一个人的经验，更精确- 无论是社会交往，新闻，工作或学习。传统上，友谊和熟人结构已通过身体接触，我们见面的人，因为他们是我们的邻居，同学，同事，或在某些地方组织的同事。我们的信息摄取却远- 报纸和电台，例如 -也反映了地方，和我们分享这些媒体的经验和我们周围的那些谁住其他人（如国家电视台）。全球影响力和互联网的交互性，然而，这是具有挑战性。个人可以花更多的时间与他人沟通和分享经验，无论他们住在哪里。随着互联网的先驱J.C.R.利克莱德写在六十年代后，“生活会更快乐的网上个人，因为人一起最强烈的一个互动将更多地受利益和事故比接近目标的共同性选择。“虚拟社区将是完美的爱好者和其他与离奇或专门利益 -无论他们是摇摆音乐，化学教授或哮喘患者的球迷。事实上，这些协会的建议和参与社会生活的全新形式的可能性。因为个人的判断，他们说什么网上虚拟社区将出现软化社会障碍按年龄，种族，性别和其他固定的特点建造。他们可以是特别的人谁可能是对面对面社会互动像同性恋青少年，持不同政见者和残疾人，沉默的价值。 （“万岁互联网，“一个自闭症写在网上讨论，其中“人们可以看到真实的我，不只是我如何与别人互动表面。“）互联网也给每个人一个新的能力，个性化的新闻，娱乐以及其他信息。与互联网使用的研究显示，用户正在这样做。与其让编辑和制作人选择他们读，听，看- 与报纸或电视-他们正在使用的网络互动，收集材料，他们只是觉得有趣。今年5月，除其他外，是一个随着信息洪流是越来越多地在我们的制胜战略推动处理。还有