16th November 2020
Ever since the ensuing COVID pandemic acquired a worldwide proportion, the form of interaction in society has undergone a revolutionary shift. To put it more explicitly, the avenues or means of social interaction have changed. While people were earlier able to physically experience social intercourse, today socialising takes place through the virtual world, sustained by the internet and provided access into the lives of people through the fruits of technological advancement.
This dramatic shift in the means of social interaction, should certainly be an event of great interest. Although we have been historically accustomed to perceiving society as an element of the tangible world, nevertheless it is evident that these interactions taking place virtually are multitudinously fulfilling many functions and characteristics of society. In a situation where the execution of the foundational operations that construct society was sorely challenged, it can be said that the existence of the virtual world has helped in sustaining society. But as any new development does, this new reality of virtual interaction brings to mind several questions regarding its nature, the question of its actuality and the borders it could fail to traverse in the construction of a functioning society.
First of all, we must question the actuality of the virtual world. Society, as we have historically understood it, is a universal entity that existed far before man even thought to examine or analyse it. The existence of tangible society was an essential pre-condition for the existence of man, for the survival of mankind requires interdependence and interaction. Thus the social world was born out of man’s innate need for interdependence and the human faculty for reason and thought that enables him to construct a universal consciousness to form connections and forge the foundations of a functioning society. While the virtual world is often thought of as an elemental extension of society, for the sake of this comparison and to expose certain fundamental differences of origin and nature, I will temporarily treat it as a dissociated entity. When considered, the virtual world was entirely born of the creative endeavour, of the conscious and deliberate effort of man. Yes, one might disprove by saying that this too was a fruit of our need for interdependence and interaction, of the intellectual and cognitive prowess of man. But there are obvious differences. The common rational awareness that causes men to spontaneously interact with his environment, collectively create rules, norms, roles etc., functioning social processes, institutions and so on was an innate aspect of his self or rather a universal attribute of the collective human consciousness. This universal attribute of mankind was in many ways, a common point of orientation for different unique individuals to transcend their immediate divisions and take on their respective roles and responsibilities as members of an ordered society. Further, the fulfilment of this common need does not necessarily require any tangible object or any special skill, since along with the need, the faculties or abilities to satisfy this want have also been inherently embedded into the human self. In definite contrast, the virtual world was a scientific creation of man, a result of technological advancement that aimed to add comfort and convenience to the lives of men. People were required to adapt to it and learn how to use it. It was a conscious invention that facilitated among other things, interaction and communication. It’s operation mandates the possession of certain material objects.
Here, closely intertwined is another radical distinction. The visible social world is a grand, total ensemble or conglomeration of its own. The individual is entirely subjugated to it. One must venture out into it, learn how to navigate it and to survive in it. You are obliged to submit to its authority and be obedient to the engagements, responsibilities, and expectations that it demands of you. No individual can hope to survive apart from the concrete structures of society. On the other hand, to a very great extent, the individual retains a good degree of control and autonomy over the virtual world. He is not obligated to be a part of it and it only gains dominance over him such as he accords to it.
However, as social interaction and the functioning of society come to depend more and more upon the virtual sphere, the individual who is forced to consent to social demands and changes cannot help but surrender to its widening reach. Once caught, there is no escape. This serves to demonstrate C. Wright Mill’s theory about the interaction of history and biography. Thus, it would seem that the virtual world has already become an established institution of society. We might say that it is rapidly being blended in or drawn into the fabric of society so that one finds it difficult to lucidly differentiate it from the visible social world. The boundaries between the two are growing fainter. Or perhaps we might ask ourselves if there were any boundaries in the first place!
The discussion of greater autonomy over the virtual domain brings us to an examination of the sovereignty that we enjoy within it. On one hand, the scope for communication and the expression of personality is limited. In what way does virtual communication tantamount to inequity when collated with in-person interaction? We might say that although the rudimentary goals of communication are gratified, such interaction takes place devoid of its usual accompaniments of gesture, expression, intonation and other non-verbal cues. It must be noted here that inspite of the fact that video calls or conferencing provide visual stimuli, this is subject to a lot of limitations and restrictions so that the information received by our senses is often insufficient for our minds to form a necessary perception.
Yet on the other hand, interaction in the virtual world, subjective to the individual, is much more controllable, it becomes less spontaneous or natural and is permissively pre-meditated. It is extremely easy to choose how you come across to people and to determine your public image. It offers an opportunity which can be positive for the self but negative for the other, to control another’s conception of yourself through a myriad of features provided by various social media platforms. Indeed, this quality of the virtual domain affords immense possibilities for the person himself that he would not have been provided in the physical world because his behaviour, image and appearance in society is also governed and determined by factors outside his control such as ascribed characteristics, situational changes, status etc. It would thus be comparatively harder to command society’s perception of yourself in the real world. But unfortunately, this kind of autonomy has led to an erosion of authenticity and honesty as people are able to create insincere online versions of themselves which are often not genuine.
This sovereignty and freedom enjoyed in the virtual world is not limited to the subjective, personal sphere of the individual alone, but extends outside of him to the broader, common realm as well. The virtual arena offers each individual a voice, the liberty to comment or express an opinion upon anything and everything. In many ways, it has provided a platform for personal views, differing stances and stifled voices to be heard. It might be said that freedom, and even equality is a foundational attribute of the virtual domain. This of course, should primarily be viewed to be a constructive property that contributes to a dissemination of the democratic spirit. However, when absolute, uninhibited freedom of speech is promulgated among all people, devoid of any caution or restriction, new circumstances and phenomenon are projected to arise.
Notably, this has led to an erosion of intelligent, dispassionate discussion that seeks as its objective, intellectual enlightenment. Often, what one articulates on the virtual platform, is not a coherent, reasoned out, rational thought or opinion, but simply an emotion or instinctive reaction that an event, statement or development awakened in them. Thus, it creates occasion for the occurrence of lazy, meaningless and futile thinking that is furnished by a common attribute of human nature, the urge to convey his judgement or attitude on all happenings. Emotions rage in a frenzied tumult for and against various matters, but they accomplish absolutely nothing. And thus, because of the increased visibility of the common, public temper, emotions govern far too much in the world today. This becomes detrimental because the greatest potential of mankind lies in his faculty for reason and conscious thought. When emotion overpowers reason, there is little left to set man apart from the animal.
Now let us examine another result of this free expression that also relates to the overthrowing of reason. The virtual world institutes greater scope for groupthink and binding group cohesion as individuals operate on a common platform. Even as individual freedom is exhorted and reinforced, when individual expression becomes increasingly evident, it ultimately results in convergence, conflict, exclusion and pressure to confirm to the common opinion. One might ask how this can be so when individual sovereignty is a fundamental building block of the virtual world. This happens because the greater visibility of individual stances and views ensures that the popular opinion consolidates into the new common, accepted public opinion, thus leaving lesser and lesser space for differing standpoints and opposing views.
Strangely, even as relativism and subjectivity gains more ascendency in the world today, this phenomenon which is not limited to the virtual world is leading to something very ironical. It is commonly declared that anything is relative and nothing is absolute. But what should be proclaimed is that one is allowed to be relative as long as his subjective or personal view complements and supports the ‘relative’ opinion of the majority. Relativity by its very definition is that which pertains entirely to the individual alone, but here the ‘absolute’ power of the majority is again being proven. This kind of relativism is entirely selfish. It does not desire or hold as its end the knowledge of truth. It only aims to use the convenient idea of relativism to create a truth that would augment their interests. And so the common relative opinion becomes the new absolute. While our ancestors had pre-existing absolutes which they did not think to question, we create our absolutes and get enraged at anyone who dares to question them!
Nevertheless, this opportunity for free expression and the visible alignment of common interests has started acting as an important instrument of social change in many positive ways. There has always been immense power in majority and the visibility accorded to public feeling through the virtual sphere has only intensified its extraordinary force. As such, politicians, public policy and decision making, law, justice etc. all become increasingly subjugated and answerable to popular sentiment and are often compelled to act under it. As we know, there have been numerous instances of such online social movements such as ‘the me too movement’ ‘black lives matter’ etc. which have succeeded in exacting positive social outcomes and educating people through their efforts. Reciprocally, authorities, leaders and public figures have also found the virtual domain a useful sphere to reach out to the public, identify with them and to win their approval.
Another avenue of the virtual world which we must explore is the question of its reality. To what extent does it resemble or imitate reality and does it ever succeed in replacing it? To accomplish this, we must first ask ourselves what reality is. In Indian philosophy, everything that we see around us is considered to be ‘maya’, meaning that all of it is simply an illusion. This interestingly supplements the philosophical understanding of reality which holds that we can never indubitably know what reality actually consists of. This is because there is a distinction between an object in reality and our perception of it. Thus, what we understand as reality is what our cognitive faculties imbibe from our senses and the information absorbed by the senses can never be proved perfectly accurate since anything that we know of the world is gauged entirely through our sensory facilities. Or in other terms, we can never be fully sure that our senses aren’t deceiving us!
It is though sensation or environmental stimuli that our senses ingest information that leads to perception. The virtual world provides visual and auditory stimuli that tries to closely resemble the mentally constructed image of reality in our minds. In a way, one could say that it offers a sort of duplicated stimuli that was created through scientific and technological prowess to manifest a compact source of secondary stimuli by assimilating primary sensory information from an environment and transmitting it as specific secondary stimuli that was filtered out of its surroundings. Thus, the device, this product of technology acts as a medium of inter junction between two environments which are separated by the laws of the physical world. Significantly, as we have seen, it is impossible to know the physical world, but the virtual world and the science of its functioning are completely within our knowledge as it is a man-made creation.
Then, how does the absence of actual, primary empirical information or stimuli from the immediate environment dictate its resemblance to our perceived reality? Let us compare an event or programme which is conducted virtually with one which is conducted physically. The differences obviously, are enormous. First of all, its participants do not share the same environment or surroundings. This will have definite consequences. While each individual’s visual and auditory stimuli, although duplicated will be identical, it will be overpowered by his immediate environmental stimuli which is more relevant and engaging to his cognitive faculties. Although we hear many people say, that through the virtual world we can be together in mind if not in body, the mind is greatly influenced by bodily sensations, and the stimuli from our immediate surroundings would effect us to a far greater extent than the visual and auditory content our senses absorb from the screen, which is a secondary stimuli for us, perhaps even detached from our reality. Thus, participation in such a virtual event, would more closely parallel the act of watching a movie than the act of attending a programme.
Thus, to the question of whether the virtual world replaces reality, it must be understood that interaction on the virtual platform is a projection of what we perceive reality to be, it is built on the foundations or assumptions of an imagined reality. Yet future advancements in technology, could very well turn the virtual into an ingredient of the mental construct of reality that exist in our minds.
The potential of technological advancement and the possibilities created by the virtual world is greatly addressed and explored in the present age. It is often implied that the services of the virtual world has allowed us to transcend the limits of time and space. But I personally find it more precise to say that these facilities have only proved to more firmly reiterate the demarcations and limitations that time and space have imposed upon us. Because virtual technology has only served one purpose, it has enabled us to defeat any impediments to free interaction and has allowed us to connect with each other although with constraints, unhindered by time and space. However, the virtual world has not served to conquer its rules in any other way. By making evident the impossibility of transcending the restraints of the physical world, it has reinforced the truth that we are still greatly governed by the limitations of the body!
Human society has evolved and transformed throughout history to become what it is today. The virtual world is a relatively new institution of society and only time will reveal the course it will take and the ways in which it will influence and transform society.
Comments
Post a Comment