The Problem of Social Media Versus the “Real World”
I was struck today with the dissonance in article headlines while doing my morning reading of the news in the Guardian. The first was “YouTube shooting suspect built online persona as she scorned the real world” about the recent shooting at YouTube headquarters and the shooters disconnection from “the real world.” And the second, “The missing link: why disabled people can’t afford to #DeleteFacebook,” discusses how social media can act as a “lifeline” for marginalized people, especially those with disabilities who may be otherwise actually disconnected from society. These two articles were published within hours of one another. Regardless of the content inside these articles, the headlines show two positions in a very polarized debate about social media usage.
There are two themes in these articles that are important to identify to get the heart of the social media debate: 1) the concept of “the real world” and 2) ableist assumptions about social media use.
What is “real” really?
We (i.e., society, human beings, people printing media articles) often refer to our physical environments and interactions as “the real world.” By referring to the physical world as the “real” world, we are then implying the virtual or digital world as being the opposite, or “unreal,” and precluding it from being real. This consistent labeling means that no matter what we do or how we behave the larger implication is that what occurs in the physical world is more real than anything that happens in the digital. This, of course, can be countered by many, many examples — including examples in the articles mentioned above.
Tom Boellstorff writes about this and has created a handy matrix that shows how both the real and unreal can happen in both physical and digital spaces (2016). One example of something unreal happening in the physical world might be Mardi Gras or a costume party. On the other hand, distributed workplaces that interact via Slack or Messenger are real, even though they happen digitally. Banking, medical records, and shopping now happen online. Does that mean I didn’t “really” spend that money on a movie even though there is never a physical trace? “Real“ is not exclusive to or a necessary part of the physical world. Therefore, it’s a misnomer to call the physical world the “real world.”
In my own work in researching digital social platforms for children with autism, I have seen the results of the damage that can be caused by referring to physical world interactions as the only “real” interactions. Children with autism, who already have a challenging time making friends in the physical world, have found acceptance and inclusion in digital communities like Autcraft. In a universal sense, this is a perfectly acceptable and comfortable social medium, and it isn’t until outsiders try to impose their own narrower framework of sociality that the children begin to question why they aren’t being social enough. Because the headlines (and teachers and parents and other children) are telling them that this form of socializing isn’t “real,” despite the fact that they are being social and making friends—it doesn’t count. This leads me to the second theme of these two Guardian articles (as just two examples of a much wider problem): ableist assumptions about social media use.
No “right” way to socialize
To assume there is only one prescribed way of socializing and that other forms of socializing are wrong is damaging to marginalized individuals. Disabled individuals are just one example of a population that may find online community, friendship, and an outlet. To tell them that what is happening online isn’t “real” or not as meaningful is denying them their own sociality — and it is ableist. Ableism is when disabled individuals are discriminated against because they do not conform to able-bodied interactions. To give privilege to those who socialize comfortably in face-to-face interactions and to the physical world is to be ableist.
And, of course, disabled individuals are only one group of people who benefit from online interactions. Other marginalized groups — and, well, everyone else, for that matter — have an opportunity to use these platforms to connect with other human beings. As we negotiate the treacherous waters of corporations trying to take advantage of us and official bodies not having a clear understanding of how to regulate these platforms or police the people who use them, let us not forget what inspired us to use these platforms to begin with.
When the physical world is considered the “real world” and the digital is therefore the unreal, people are given the unspoken permission to behave in uncivilized ways online. If we continue to tell people that online isn’t real, then there is less recourse for correcting malevolent behavior. Bullying, harassment, and trolling goes unchecked. Anonymous people tell a 6-year-old that they should kill themselves. Arguments can escalate into physical world, very real, very deadly consequences, such as through swatting. If we throw up our hands and say that it only matters when it becomes a problem in the “real world,” then we are dooming individuals to fend for themselves.
Are physical and digital interactions the same? No, and that’s the point. We live in an age when we have diverse choices in how we would like to interact. Phone call, tweet, Facebook post, YouTube video, VR, virtual worlds, or walk down the hall and chat over coffee — these are all open to us and we don’t have to belittle some of these choices simply because they happen digitally.
A call for balance
So what is my bottom line? What am I hoping to gain from this article? I would like to see more balanced reporting and a more nuanced understanding of social media usage. Are face-to-face interactions and physical world environments important? Yes. Are digital interactions and virtual world environments just as important? Yes. I believe with a little care, we can start to shift the conversation to be more open.
I know that with time, it won’t matter anymore. Children growing up now have already learned to harness digital interactions with great aptitude — with physical world consequences. And when they are adults, this conversation will probably be moot. But until then, I would like to see a little more compassion for those who need and thrive in digital environments and a little less fear-mongering from those who don’t understand digital mediums.
References
Boellstorff, Tom. 2016. “For Whom the Ontology Turns: Theorizing the Digital Real.” Current Anthropology 57 (4): 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1086/687362.
