Is the real problem dichotomy?
It seems that human beings have a natural penchant for dichotomy. The prototypical report on truth is full of dichotomy. In myth or time-honored religious texts, everything is described in terms of dichotomy. Heaven is something that is opposed to the earth. Creation is antithetical to chaos – the list of dichotomy is endless. Academia has not been totally free from conceptual dichotomy, and it is true of the filed of the Internet research. Dichotomic thinking in Internet research is observed in explaining the technological nature of the Internet (synchronous/asynchronous), its overall social effect (positive/negative) and its influence on human relationships (primary, strongtie/ secondary,weaktie). Something seems to urge us to overcome this type of simplistic and reductionistic dichotomies. However, is the real problem dichotomy?
Though it might sound like a truism, what makes us feel tired of dichotomy in Internet research is that it is “too simple.” To say it the other way round, we tend to find the origin of the impression – it’s too simple! – from those dichotomies. However, it appears that what makes it simplistic, so that what turns our attention to “dichotomies” lies elsewhere. I believe that what makes current Internet research look simplistic is not those dichotomies, but "making simplistic connection" between the Internet and those dichotomic concepts. For example, the overall framework of some research takes the following logic:
The Internet -----------------> primary/strongtie
(facilitates)
The Internet -----------------> secondary/weaktie
As seen above, the dichotomy used above argument is between primary and secondary relationship, and the very dichotomy seems to make the argument simplistic. However, what makes it simplistic, so that problamatic in above conncetion is that 1) there is no intermediate factor between the Internet and primary/secondary relation and 2) there is no preceding factor before the Internet. Multiplex-multilayered-mutidimensional explanation in which prededing and intermediating factors are fully considered - that is one possible way to overcome the seemingly simplistic view of dichotomic observation.
Though it might sound like a truism, what makes us feel tired of dichotomy in Internet research is that it is “too simple.” To say it the other way round, we tend to find the origin of the impression – it’s too simple! – from those dichotomies. However, it appears that what makes it simplistic, so that what turns our attention to “dichotomies” lies elsewhere. I believe that what makes current Internet research look simplistic is not those dichotomies, but "making simplistic connection" between the Internet and those dichotomic concepts. For example, the overall framework of some research takes the following logic:
The Internet -----------------> primary/strongtie
(facilitates)
The Internet -----------------> secondary/weaktie
As seen above, the dichotomy used above argument is between primary and secondary relationship, and the very dichotomy seems to make the argument simplistic. However, what makes it simplistic, so that problamatic in above conncetion is that 1) there is no intermediate factor between the Internet and primary/secondary relation and 2) there is no preceding factor before the Internet. Multiplex-multilayered-mutidimensional explanation in which prededing and intermediating factors are fully considered - that is one possible way to overcome the seemingly simplistic view of dichotomic observation.
posted by Anonymous at
9:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home