Stewart seems to suggest that this is related to the miserable economy, where Japan’s massive debt has contributed to just 14% of respondents reported feeling confident in Japan’s direction, according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll cited by Stewart. But, what if the economy is just a single contributor among many? And what if hikikomori are cropping up across the globe and not just in Japan?

As I read Stewart’s brief column, I couldn’t help but remember a March 2007 essay published in Harper’s where I first encountered Internet Addiction (“I was a Chinese Internet Addict.”) That essay discussed the phenomenon, likely to be added to the DSM-5, in which individuals become so obsessed with the internet that they lose touch with reality (I’m dramatizing, but only slightly). What of the people who give up on physically social lives, and opt for solely (or predominantly) digital ones?

This bears keeping in mind. As social media develops and becomes more pervasive – as comprehensive connection to a digital world becomes more facile, what do we stand to lose?

This article suggests that the burgeoning amount of emails, instant messages, tweets, and texts we receive  are becoming a harmful and prohibitive cacophony of hyper-communication. So why can’t people reduce the amount of messages they send (and receive)? Well, they could be addicted (“e-compulsion”). In such instances researchers notice decreased attention spans, increased stress, and decreased productivity (Alarming statistics! Read the article).

The most frightful thing to consider? What if what we’re doing – emailing about – day-to-day really impacts our life in the long-term? Robinson brings to light an argument by Winifred Gallagher, authored of Rapt, that “humans are the sum of what they pay attention to: What we focus on determines our experience, knowledge, amusement, fulfillment. Yet instead of cultivating this resource, she says, we’re squandering it on ‘whatever captures our awareness.’ To truly learn something, and remember it, you have to pay full attention.”

As noted by Robinson, it pays to pay attention to attention.

Note an example of a blogging “no-no” which the FTC provides:

“Assume…the consumer joins a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so. If she receives a free bag of..new dog food through this program, her positive reviews would be considered an endorsement under the [new guidelines]” (60).

According to Jerald Block, Internet Addiction is

“a compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder that involves online and/or offline computer usage and consists of at least three subtypes: excessive gaming, sexual preoccupations, and e-mail/text messaging. All of the variants share the following four components:

1) excessive use, often associated with a loss of sense of time or a neglect of basic drives,

2) withdrawal, including feelings of anger, tension, and/or depression when the computer is inaccessible,

3) tolerance, including the need for better computer equipment, more software, or more hours of use, and

4) negative repercussions, including arguments, lying, poor achievement, social isolation, and fatigue.”

If any of these symptoms apply to you or someone you know (and that’s very, very likely), perhaps you should read on.

As this announcement comes forward, he United States is just beginning to detect and investigate Internet Addiction. Other countries, however, have acknowledged and been treating it for several years. In March 2007, Harper’s Magazine published an intensely written, compelling essay by McKenzie Funk on the subject. In “I Was a Chinese Internet Addict,” Funk highlights the disorder in great detail and performs a type of journalistic ethnography; entering himself as a patient in a clinic designated to treat those unfortunate souls diagnosed with Internet Addiction. Funk is bound to astound you by his excellent reporting as he describes in graphic detail his interactions with several Chinese Netizens (which he informs us is the “preferred translation of the term wangmin, literally ‘network citizens.’), his clinic experience, and the overall state of digital affairs in China

Frankly, while you read, you are sure to begin developing at least a minute sense of fear. You’ll begin to wonder: could the current state of affairs in China simply be a premenition of what the United States is careening towards? When Funk was in China last year, statistics suggested that 12.5% of Chinese youths (that’s one in every eight) are Internet Addicts. According to Block’s article from this year, that number has only increased – and now stands at 13.7% (or 10 million youths). Undoubtedly this is tied to the unfortunate news published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which determined that “80% of college and university dropouts had failed due to Internet Addiction” (the study was presumably restricted to Chinese institutions only). On the heels of these disturbing revelations, China’s government has begun to get involved by passing laws which now discourage more than three hours of computer gaming on a daily basis [3]. Of course, measures like that can no longer help some individuals, such as the young Shanghai man who, after six years of online gaming, has become forever stuck in a sitting position, his back becoming “fused at a 90-degree angle;” his doctors admitting “there was nothing they could do” [2].

Funk would likely say that we’re right to fear that this vignette might soon appear within our own borders. After all, he identifies Internet Addiction clinics, certain laws, “safe-surfing” programs, and an anti-Internet Addiction sitcom as Chinese counter-measures “by a people who were certain they saw a danger that the West, in its more incremental steps to modernity it, largely hadn’t” [2]. Funk observes that “it is normal for humans to become lost, to drop out of society, and perhaps just as normal for them to lose themselves but tell themselves they’re fine. It is rarer, [he thinks], when we dare name the culprit” [2]. We can certainly ignore it no longer. As the most recent figures from comScore indicate, more than 69% of the world’s internet users access a social networking site at least once a month.

I recognize, of course, the irony in reporting this information via the same medium it seems to inveigh against. And yet, I maintain that the Internet is not inherently “bad”. Just like alcohol, cigarettes, food, and so many other vices common in our society, the Internet is simply an innocent tool. It is, as it must be, our use of this tool which defines whether it is healthy or unhealthy. Unfortunately, as a society known for its excessive use of all the aforementioned vices, I’m not yet confident we possess the self-control necessary to avoid becoming a country full of addicts.

—-

References

[1] Jerald Block, “Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, March 2008. Link.

[2] McKenzie Funk, “I Was a Chinese Internet Addict,” Harper’s Magazine, March 2007. Link. (Well worth buying the article, as you probably must).

[3] – “The more they play, the more they lose,” People’s Daily Online, April 10, 2007. Link.

Read “Ten leading platforms for creating online communities.“

Naked on the Internet, by Audacia Ray

Having an interest in any form of cultural criticism, I remember my excitement upon seeing the book when browsing at my local bookstore. I read the back flap and was sold. I imagined that I knew very little about how women used the internet and so exploring at least one dimension of their use — where sexuality is concerned — might prove interesting as well as educational. This book especially seemed a propos on the heels of my reading Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat, which in large part was dedicated to the Internet’s effect(s) on our society.  Ray’s book was certainly educational, though it failed to maintain my interest throughout its entirety (which, for a male heterosexual reader, doesn’t seem too surprising).

Naked on the Internet is groundbreaking, in that Ray provides an introduction to a topic which scholarship has almost completely ignored. Her book accomplishes something phenomenal in that she doesn’t just cover this topic; rather, she maps out all of this topic’s hidden recesses and then undresses it completely, exposing these recesses for her readers’ perusal. Without a doubt, Ray has filled Naked with more information and more diverse perspectives than I expected. Nevertheless, her work suffers, in my opinion, from two major flaws.

Perhaps my expectations are overinflated, but when I approached this book I expected serious research which would generously contribute to existing scholarship, especially when written by someone with an MA from Columbia University. and when categorized as “Women’s Studies.”  Unfortunately, all I got was hearsay, generalizations, and a narrow perspective on what I take to be a burgeoning field. Perhaps the greatest defect was her simple lack of precision, which in turn drastically marred the author’s credibility. Nearly all of her observations or criticisms, for example, are backed up with phrases as unspecific as, “…and I’ve talked to plenty of women who confirm that this impulse….” or “because women are often socialized to please, and because many do genuinely take pleasure in doing so…” Of course, the real shame here isn’t just that the author opted for vague and unspecific examples, but that this could have been easily rectified. Ray interviewed dozens of women, but chose not to collate their answers to her questions in any quantifiable way so as to back up her observations, and ignored the multitudinous academic research engines available, simply brimming with articles which could provide ready-made support for her sweeping claims.

Ultimately, I think the true value of this book (and do not mistake me; it is a valuable book) lies in its virtue as an introduction and a de facto call for further research. Through numerous brief anecdotes or roughly hewn enthrographic vignettes, Ray highlights dozens of points for further inquiry, such as her assertion that blogs may be the hallmark of a transition from confessional to professional, where blogs are acting like traditional confessionals with the exception that users can profess themselves into being. While this work may lack legitimacy as a critical text, it certainly makes great strides in compensating with its gusto. Perhaps Naked on the Internet can be best thought of, not as a flagship, but as a scout, making that perilous first foray into turbulent waters.

As Robin Gareiss of Network World observes, SNS such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace present a swath of opportunities and hurdles for employers. Contrary to what you might expect, many companies are taking the issue of SNS head on. Gareiss notes that “about 26% of businesses use [SNS], and another 28% are evaluating or planning to use them” while another “46% of companies [have] no plans” for SNS.

What’s the position of your organization?

In considering the SNS question, businesses must decide what practical value, if any, an SNS would add. Some businesses (42%) have quickly and decisively determined that SNS would only waste employees’ precious time, and so block them (Nemertes, quote by Gareiss). In addition to the potential time and productivity vacuum, these businesses worry that SNS might deconstruct the professional relationship employees might otherwise maintain with their colleagues by having less fettered access to personal information, thoughts, desires, and self-disclosures.

Other businesses, however, are finding SNS to be invaluable in promoting their products/services and providing their employees with an additional, more flexible interface for connecting with clients and business partners (Gareiss). In fact, some of these companies prefer using SNS because “they like mixing business and personal relationships” and feel that “knowing more about their colleagues or customers builds tighter bonds” (Gareiss). Furthermore, some researchers assert that allowing employees to use SNS can even promote productivity (Challenger). One survey assessing companies’ stances on SNS found that 10% of respondents believed SNS are “invaluable marketing, networking and sales tools,” while another 6% actually encourage their employees to have a presence on these sites (Challenger). A survey by the Institute of Corporate Productivity quoted by Challenger revealed that 52% of workers use SNS to “keep connected with internal and remote staff,” while another 47% use SNS to “identify and build relationships with potential customers and to showcase their skills.”

With an equal amount of data supporting the decision to block SNS as to promote their use, the question for businesses really comes down to what vision they feel more comfortable with: do they envision increased success by fashioning their business into an island unto itself, or do they envision greater success through working to establish a corporate pangea, through which businesses are connected as never before? Or is it even fair to reduce the issue to such a simple binary?

Regardless of what businesses may (or may not) decide,  SNS are not waiting for general acceptance. It seems a new business-oriented SNS rises to the fore daily.  Jay Campbell of Travel Management highlighted two new business SNS this week: i-Meet, a “worldwide professional and social network for meeting and event planners,” and American’ Expresses’ Business Travel Connexion, a network for travel professionals. Other SNS populating the business-oriented neighborhood include Ryze, which describes itself as a helping “people make connections and grow their networks…to grow your business, build your career and life, find a job and make sales;” APSense, a “Free Business Social Network where people get paid to come together to share their business;” and VOIS, declares itself to be “one of the faster growing, publicly-traded global social networking communities” which “encourages its members to promote themselves and their businesses by using VOIS social commerce tools.”

Together, these SNS are forming a movement for sCommerce (social commerce). The fate of sCommerce will likely be determined by whether the majority of businesses will buy into sCommerce as something they can efficaciously leverage, or if they will just see it as an empty, unfulfillable promise.

_______

See

• Campbell, Jay. “New Social Networks Emerge for Travel, Meeting Professionals.” Travel Management. 08.13.2008. [Click here].
• Challenger, James. “Are Social Networking Sites Good for Business?” California Job Journal. 08.10.2008. [Click here].
• Cheshire, Lee. “Teens Grow Wary of Social Networking.” Growth Business. 08.11.2008. [Click here].
• Gareiss, Robin. “Social Networking at the Branch.” Network World. 08.12.2008. [Click here].
• Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. “Internet’s Broader Role in Campaign 2008: Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off.” 01.11.08. [Click here].