"Her" and the Network Socialization of Relationships

We all have them...friends...and "friends."  We talk about them in present tense.  We laugh at their jokes.  We share silly memes with them.  We interact for the same interests, like sports teams, television shows or even social/political beliefs.

If you're an active person on Facebook, we all categorize friends in certain manners.  We have family, former schoolmates, next door neighbors, coworkers.  But we also have the exclusive "online friend," which is a growing subset of our population and a real relationship.

It's occurred to me that the next level of human interaction and relationships is online.  That's not necessarily groundbreaking, that thought.  But what's  fascinating to me is that when one has an "online friend," it's just as important and weighted in high value to the people involved in these interactions.

Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that one can't discount the "online friend" or "online relationship" phenomenon anymore.  The online friend is almost an exclusive category now to those as our networks expand ever so greatly and rapidly.

Yet, I can't help but wonder, if this is just systemic of the growing isolation that's pervasive in our lives.  

*******************************************

Anyone around here seen Her yet?

I saw it in the theaters last year, and the subject matter fascinated me (let alone the people story the movie followed).  I won't give away too many spoilers, but the general synopsis is well-known.  The story is about a relatively ordinary man who lives alone and strikes up a relationship with his operating system, who calls herself "Samantha."  We find out that the protoganist, Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix), has had intimacy and relationship issues in the past.

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder...with the advent and importance placed upon online relationships, how far off are we from having relationships with our operating systems?

Director Spike Jonze made the movie seem futuristic without being too deliberate in letting us know just how many years he predicted a relationship between a human and an operating system would occur.  Yet it seems as though it could be happening right under our very nose. A major plot topic was on how Samantha knew everything with which Theodore had interest, which is why I think exclusively online relationships are intriguing and most of all attractive to people.  By the same token, people with online relationships are free to be whoever they want to be in other forums.  Forums, which, one may not be aware of.

Without a face, body language or the pressure of vis-a-vis interaction, people can expand themselves to be who they want to be without the responsibility of a real living, breathing human relationship. 

As I watched the movie, however, I saw so many parallels between online relationships and mostly the emotional interaction between people.  To some, it's almost as if we're all having relationships with our operating systems.  We chat and send messages on our computers.  We text and Kik and WhatsApp others from our phones.  Some of these types of relationships have been going on for years.  The idea is nothing new. 

Last year, right around the time Her was in the theaters, Daniel Jones wrote about the very topic of online emotional relationships in the New York Times.  He claims that not only does technology alter "our romantic landscape," he has a term for these individuals who rely on these relationships: "Soul Mate in a Box" (or "Smiab" for short).

Prior to seeing this movie, I have seen technology play out as a third party for many "relationships," which I use as a term very loosely.  I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist in that I still think that the face-to-face interaction is weighted a heck of a lot more.  Yet I get the value of an online relationship.  I have a very good friend whom I've never met face-to-face but we've collaborated on podcasts and talked on the phone several times.  Of course, I'd feel our relationship would be more "legit" had we ever met in person, and that will come in due time.

Yet, at the same time, I know there is a certain subset of the online population that I interact with who are perfectly fine with never meeting in person.  It used to upset me, because you know, "how convenient" that I am going to be in your hometown and we've talked about meeting for over five years.  And you have a family emergency that has you out of town that same time.  Now, I really don't mind.  I guess I've come to the conclusion that there are people who will just be an exclusively online relationship for me.

Yet, I've seen so many people put so much stock in their virtual relationship, that they go through a true sense of loss if something happens to end it, as we see in Her. I'm quite sure anyone who reads this knows someone who has been in a virtual relationship like this, or at the very least has either been a party to one or participates in one.

I've had a few ideas as to why these seem so prevalent, as Mr. Jones elaborated on in his column.  One theory he had was the idea of a physical relationship being more "work" than an online relationship.  People don't have to put too much effort into being physically present (and yes, that does take a lot of work).  And while individuals are making themselves emotionally available, there's not a ton of maintenance going on there.  Say a few nice words, put the other on a pedestal and get to go home by yourself at night.

I feel like technology has allowed those of us who prefer or don't mind being alone (I'm a proud introvert) stay that way.  As an example, women tend to be emotionally available and can be more vulnerable or receptive to an emotional online relationship.  Remember, folks, the biggest erogenous zone is the brain (thank you Jackie Treehorn).  This was evident in the scene in Her where Theodore and Samantha "consummate" the relationship.  Though when presented with an opportunity to use a surrogate proxy to have a physical relationship, Theodore couldn't do it.

It makes me wonder how many of these relationships wouldn't go the distance.  Sure, we've heard of online relationships being very successful.  There are just some relationships that serve to be just "online."

Like the catfish.  Remember a few years ago the story about football player Manti Te'o? He was involved in a scheme that an online personality lured him and made him believe that his online counterpart was involved in a fatal car accident, and it made the news because his grandmother had passed away as well that same week.  It was found to be a farcical relationship that he went public with later.

Why does something like catfishing occur?  You'd think in this day and age, we'd be less trusting and even more questioning of an online presence's motives.  I guess at the root of it, we try to believe the best in people, and those stories happen to "other people."  Plus, it's easy to believe you know the "real person" behind the curtain.  When the reality is, we don't even know if this person who may present themselves to be female is EVEN a female...because they've never met.  And how convenient they do not like posting pictures of themselves?

Then there's the "emotional cheat," as I like to call it.  I think the disconnect happens once again because of gender perceptions.  Women are seen as emotional beings, men physical.  If there's a man who is not getting his emotional needs fulfilled by his significant other, guess what?  There's a woman he's never met and doesn't need to service on a physical level willing to meet those needs.  Women have been seen as more apt to "fall" for the other in an emotional relationship, while it may be seen as collateral damage to the male in the relationship.  There's no actual physical interaction...who exactly is being harmed?

The complicated layer of technology and relationships is a prevalent theme here at CDV.  It's something that is not going away, but it needs to have the respect of something as important, destructive but also character building and enhancing as a real life face-to-face meeting.

I can't discount the fact that I have met some of the most important people in my life online, even my husband.  I can say with an absolute certainty that I am not sure if I could have met other people whom I consider friends without the social networking level.  It's important to me, and certainly something I have a healthy appreciation for.

But when people rely on technology too much for forming their relationships, then it becomes a real life problem, like it did in Her.

Isolation

Someone, who didn't own a smart phone let alone have interactions on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, once told me that when history looks at this period of time, it will be looked upon as the "decline of civilization."

I found it funny because while I didn't know this person well, the reason I was in this setting was because I knew the majority of folks at this event THROUGH social media.

This gentleman's argument was that while we were at a social function, most of us were either taking pictures or attending to items on social media.

I saw his point, though I disagreed with it.  Social media, warts and all, has brought a lot of joy in my life.  It's kept me posted on world and current events, and has put me more in touch with distant family members and friends. 

The point was, we were in a social function setting...but we were attending to our smartphones.

Yes, he said, when history looked at this period, they would see the decline of civilization.

In some ways, social media has taken things too far, but in others, it's made us better people.  Perhaps more understanding.

Yet, if someone was an introvert, hermit-like or isolated to begin with, I think that social media can unintentionally amplify those behaviors.

Then, there is the advent of the selfie.  Selfies are officially defined as:

"A photograph that one takes of oneself with a digital camera or a front-facing smartphone, tablet, or webcam, especially for posting on a social-networking or photo-sharing website."

Selfies can be fun.  Heck, Ellen Degeneres put selfies on the map at the Oscars last year, infamously taking one and posting it during the actual ceremony.   We can get in a group of friends and make funny faces.  It's also a safety issue.  If I'm in a touristy place where I don't know a lot of people, and I want to take a pic of myself, I'd rather take it myself than worry about some dishonest person try to take my phone.  

How many times have we joked that "I need longer arms, lol!" to take a photo?  

Well, fret not folks...because earlier in 2014, the selfie "stick" was born.

VOILA! A selfie-stick!

A long arm type of device that you can put your phone or point-and-shoot camera, selfie sticks have popped up all over.  

And my question is...why?  Why is this needed?

And I guess it was something that's needed, because I see them everywhere.  EVERY.  DAMN.  WHERE.

I saw that at a fall conference I attended.  I see them on the streets.  I saw them all over New York City from tourists.

I admit, I have been known to take a selfie at times if I didn't exactly trust another person in the area to my own picture with my camera or phone.  Now, the selfie stick not only takes away the awkwardness of asking a total stranger to take your photo...

It also increases the isolation that the gentleman I met over a year ago warned us all about.

Think about it: selfie sticks aren't just used for groups of people who "need those longer arms - lol!"  It's for people who are traveling on their own or want to keep themselves isolated, if not for protection but to reduce their human interaction to a further degree.

A few months ago, my husband and I were going to the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade which runs right through our neighborhood in New York City, and a few tourists asked if they could follow us, as they wanted to go where the "locals" went.  We were happy to oblige.  We found out that they were visiting from the United Kingdom, one of their travel companions had broken his foot a few months earlier and couldn't get around as well as he wanted, and they didn't want to be "annoying tourists." 

These folks could have minded their own bees wax, taken selfies themselves or just been "annoying tourists."  Instead, we had a nice time answering these folks' questions (and trust me...I know from **annoying tourists**), and chatting them up.  

We'll probably never see them again, but that's not the point.  Instead, we were able to give these folks some survival guide tips that they can share with their friends who make the trip over as well.  Or they could go back to whatever city they were from, and tell them about the "brilliant New Yorkers they met" (I'm making that up of course).

It used to be that we'd go overseas or be social for just that...the social interactions that add a layer to our lives.  The selfie stick allows more tourists and visitors to keep to themselves, thus leaving the social interaction part dormant.

Also, you look like a jerk.

Selfies were coined for the teenager making duck faces in their bedroom, and they have kind of taken on an irony of their own.   The selfie stick is just another layer to add to a self-perpetuating culture of selfishness and isolation, which is antithetical to what the social media movement is trying to achieve.

I see what the gentleman was saying about the decline of civilization...I don't believe it to be true.  But what's next in this culture of isolation...talking to one self on social media?  Well, I guess we do see that sometimes.