mediajunk

Reading the previous post on mobile phones and their effects on society and culture led me to think about the related issue of social distance.

In 1926 an American sociologist named Emory Bogardus developed his valuable social distance scale, still commonly used within the social sciences today.

The scale was based on a series of seven statements that subjects were asked to consider for different racial, social and national groups. In 1927 people where asked how they would feel to have a member of group X :

a) in close kinship marriage
b) in my club as a personal chum
c) in my street as a neighbour
d) as a fellow employmee in my occupation
e) as a fellow citizen in my country
f) as a visitor only in my country
g) I would exclude all members of X my country

Bogardus's original series of statements has, of coures, been updated, but the quaint terms in the original highlight the key milestones in our definition of social distance: marriage, friendship, neighbours, workmates, citizenship and visitors to one's country (with different notions of how long to stay). Are these barometers still relevant in our 'network age'?

Marriage and the family are certainly two 'institutions' that hold less relevance than the once did in our society. Personal friendships have also altered in their meaning and use. I have more contact with a friend in Copenhagen (from instant messages to online chess matches) than with friends living within a mile of my home in Dublin!

Work distance has drastically changed in an age where the ability to even explain one's job in less than five sentences becomes increasingly difficult. The movement in and out of employment can often lead individuals to have little regard for those in their workplace. Communication technologies ensure that we have little reason to leave our 'work space'; instead, we phone or email those within ten paces of our desks.

The notion of social/cultural identity are changing just as rapidly. Even the bond of nationality is weakening; we no longer see ourselves as members of one nation under any God. Marketing and media 'help' us define ourselves through intransient notions such as television programmes, music, mobile phone brands, preferred websites, etc. It's true that none of us will have identical music, film or website tastes. Indeed, it is a case of coming up with something that someone else has not seen, heard or read.

Perhaps we should update the statements used to measure social distance as follows...

I would be happy to have a fan/believer/follower of movie/ideology/brand X:

a) included in my address book
b) in the list of people to whom I mass-send jokey emails
c) as someone I text-message once a week
d) as someone I would allow in my chatgroup
e) as someone who could visit and post comments on my website
f) as a visitor only to my website
g) I would block all incoming calls, instant messages and bar his/her IP address from accessing my website

The point is, what are the barometers for social distance as our social interaction becomes increasingly 'virtual'?