Welcome to Glass House Sign in | Help

Vanishing Borders and the Rise of Neo-tribalism

In all aspects of our lives and around the world, we are seeing borders disappear, often with unpredictable and dramatic consequences and outcomes. Not just physical borders – though these are thinning too. Social, community, online/offline – all are now blurred, and we are jointly grappling with the communication challenges these changes bring.

Consider:

Technology has essentially erased the border that at one time, for most people, separated work from non-work time. You worked in a factory, or a farm, or a bank, or a theater, the day ended and you went home – work was done, the rest of life was underway. Today, work and life bleed together all the time, mostly in the unwanted direction of work taking up personal time, but sometimes in the other direction, as in ordering a movie online at work, or exchanging IM or email with a loved one.

At the same time, the border that previously existed between the online and offline worlds also has become diffuse. As virtual reality becomes more immersive, what people experience in front of their computers or other input devices can become as “real” as that in the flesh and blood world. I experienced this early on in my gaming career after a particularly long and immersive weekend of Doom – I walked down the hall at work and looked at a painting and thought, “hmm, I bet if I push here, it will open up a passage.” No, I didn’t push, but it did give me pause (and cause me to go cold turkey on Doom). People looking to connect today experience that blur between online and offline. Now, when I travel, I have an out of office email message that says I’ll be slow on mail, sometimes it says I’m on vacation, sometimes it says I’m traveling on business. When I get where I’m going, I update my IM to reflect location – FXS is in Orlando, San Francisco, NYC. My presence on Facebook changes regularly simply because it can – having breakfast, getting ready for an event, wishing for rain. My blog updates, people read it, have a sense of where I am/what I’m doing. Even when not connected, those virtual cues I’ve left behind signal both my presence and my location in a way that was not even conceivable just five years ago. For me, and I think for many, we live in a constant gray area between the online and offline worlds – semi-online? Offline except for sms messages on the phone, and the digital trail of where I am/have been?

Borders and identification solidly in the real world are blurred as well. And not just via things like the ability to travel so easily through EU countries. At two conferences in the last month, I’ve watched people identify themselves first by the company they worked for, and only then by where they were from in the world. And even those same companies increasingly are only loosely moored to geographic labels – in a global economy is Dassault a French company? IBM an American company? If a U.S. port is being managed by a company headquartered in Dubai but listed on the London stock exchange, what is the tag we’d put on the whole mess? Citizens and companies of the world indeed.

The impact of technology can be especially seen in the way we look at/define community. For many years, community was found where people lived/worked, the border between a city or town, or neighborhood or school district. Friends existed in the real world. Today, “friends” on Facebook or MySpace can be friends in the true sense of the word in the real world, or they can be business associates or people you might have bumped into once at a conference or school. As many others have noted, sometimes our closest and tightest relationships are with those in the virtual community and not in the real community – the best example is the incredibly tight connection often found in the clans operating in World of Warcraft. Virtual reality or no, the community is real.

Still, we’re in early days. As I’ve noted before, we’re all struggling to find the right analog between the real and virtual in the way we want to communicate and be communicated to. If I accept that my personal and professional lives are increasingly blurred and connected, what are the modes of communication I want to receive? It’s not a philosophical question, it’s one that anyone in communication should be consumed with. We already have more data and more ways to communicate in a focused way than at any time in history. Are we using these new tools to fine tune the way we reach people, or are we using a blunt instrument still? What we are about to see is going to make the arguments about “opt out” and “opt in” look puny by comparison – when the online/offline/personal/business lives converge, I think people are going to be even more cranky about the next version of spam. Of course, the upside is huge. If I chose to geographically identify myself (where I am) and what mode I’m in (working/playing), then the way I want to be communicated (or let’s just call it marketed) to is pretty clear – and should be a win for marketers and marketees alike.

So, on this front, color me optimistic. But the world has a way of pushing back, and I can’t help but notice the rise of neo-tribalism, where people associate so strongly with those from their physical tribe that all else ceases to matter. Hello, Iraq, hello Lebanon, hello London, hello Kosovo. In each of these places, the tribe wins – the immediate, physical tribe, not the community writ large and made possible via technology. Years ago, when I was working with McDonald’s, there was a saying that there had never been a war between two counties who both had McD franchises, a rule proved wrong in Panama and again in the conflicts in both Serbia and Lebanon, but I think the larger point is still valid and at least semi-hopeful – if a country is developed enough to have fast food, they will be less likely to engage in territorial disputes. In the same way, my hope is that the rise of neo-community will someday dwarf the rise of neo-tribalism, to the end that we’ll look back at the physical world disputes and wonder what the deal was, after all. Is there a tie between broadband penetration, computer access and societal violence? Someone smarter than me will figure it out, I’m sure – just name the rule after me – the fxs rule of broadband and tribalism.

Technorati tags: , , ,
Published Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:01 PM by FrankShaw

Comments

 

Lynann Bradbury said:

This is one of the most meaningful blog posts I’ve read in a long time.  In fact, you’ve raise several points worth pondering.  The one I’ll start with is this:  

If there’s one thing my brain remembers from Psyche 101 20+ years ago, its Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  Just above the physiological need of hunger and the safety needs of security and protection, is the need for belonging: that sense of connection with something/one larger than ourselves. To the degree that virtual connections help us feel that sense of belonging and meaningful connection, they can augment our own tribal affiliation.  The problem is that not all tribes – or the people within them – have access to computers or broadband, or to food, shelter or safety, for that matter.  Until we bridge the chasm between the digital-haves and have-nots, that sense of "neo-community" will be limited.  

July 23, 2007 3:48 PM
 

Peter Lytle said:

To quote a great philosopher: "Every human longs for the primitive."  

I tend to agree.  Although the internet has allowed us unprecedented opportunities to create our own affiliations and identities beyond the bounds of face-to-face interaction (your "neo-community"), it seems the strongest bonds are always the most basic and visceral: the tribe, clan or family.

It is this draw to the primitive that I think will prevent neo-communities from being the moderating force in social conflict you describe.  The hope that increased virtual communication will lead to increased cross-cultural communication, which will lead to increased shared cross-cultural experiences, which will lead to a greater cross-cultural awareness and thus lead to (hopefully) less real-world conflict works on one assumption: that when a person assumes an online identity, they leave their previous prejudices and petty hatreds behind.  This is where the neo-community falls apart.  People do not abandon thier tribal natures once they enter the virtual world; they simply use the virtual world as an extention of the extsting social dogma.

I share your same hope.  I just don't think it will work.

And the great philosopher was Spock.

July 23, 2007 4:20 PM
 

SLW said:

Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, written in 1992, touches on the idea of increasing physical borders, (burbclaves with their own constitutions, cities divided into corporate neighborhoods with different levels of access) juxtaposed with decreasing virtual borders (the book helped invent the term avatar).  it may be a hackneyed reference at this point, but it touches on everything you wrote and more.

July 24, 2007 8:20 AM
 

FrankShaw said:

The best book ever on this topic.

I aspire to gargoyle status!

July 24, 2007 8:24 AM
 

Trinity Sell said:

This is absolutely true. I have experienced the same thing as you have in relation to online gaming. I find that when my live in the real world is a bit stressfull I always want to go and play World of Warcraft because I always know my online friends and guild will be there and that world really doesn't change. Its like a second "more fun" world than this one! I also found it weird that when I went to a conference I put both my real name and my online name on my conference badge, because I knew that most of the people there would identify me more with my online name than with my real one!

Interesting things these borders :)

July 24, 2007 10:15 AM
 

Marianne Allison said:

One of my favorite community examples is the Slow Food movement, because it's such a wonderful paradox, a global community--much of it virtual--uniting around something intrinsically local and tangible--food.  So the very idea is to resist homogenized foods, modern methods, and "global" sourcing of food and celebrate in the super-local (i.e., arguments abound over whose olive oil is the best), using modern technology to fuel the dialogue and of course enable global markets for the super locally produced goods that could never have been opened before.   Now, we can't (yet) physically eat together in a virtual way, but you can sure unite over food experience like never before. Food Luddites, maybe, but not Luddites in every other way.  I love the paradox.

Another perspective on neo-tribalism is from Tom Friedman "other" book's concept of the Lexus and the olive tree--where he made the point that while globalization makes possible a "global car" like the Lexus, there will always be rootedness, pulling people away from globalization.  What I think you're pointing out is that the rootedness doesn't have to be physical--it is can be a rootedness in any deeply held, common experience or values--like slow food.  

July 25, 2007 1:46 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules.
Submit

Syndication



» Blogs that link here
» View my profile

Powered by Technorati