Page 153 - Culture Technology Communication

136 Herbert Hrachovec

the opportunity to communicate via e-mail messages, sometimes sit-
ting next to each other in the computer lab. Their real-life existence
had somehow acquired an electronic supplement as their identity as
participants on give-l exerted increasing influence on their actual life.
I had loosely associated give-l with a seminar I held at the Depart-
ment of Philosophy expecting it to enhance traditional forms of learn-
ing/teaching. But the list quickly developed into a melange of
discussions only temporarily focused on single topics. High-quality
contributions were running side by side with beginner’s questions and
silly comments, mirroring a student’s checkered experience at an aca-
demic institution in a way conventional media are unable to match.
Inevitably, as a group identity was forged, a social hierarchy
8
imposed itself on the participants. This lead to predictable tensions
on-line and in real life. One list member, to mention the most contro-
versial case, intermittently attacked his fellows quite rudely, even
though he could be seen as a reasonably well-mannered, if idiosyn-
cratic, student in the context of the seminar meetings. Knowing this
person’s peculiarities, a majority was prepared to tolerate his trans-
gressions on the list. But when newcomers from outside the local cir-
cle were also fiercely attacked the affair threatened to get out of hand
and, after several warnings, I removed the offender from the list.
The consequences of this removal were dramatic and served as a
first reminder of the more problematic aspects of on-line meetings.
Two weeks after the event a student, resenting my decision, asked
“whether all give-l members are fascists?” This provocative question
shattered the—until now, largely innocent—preconception of a more
productive, civil life in cyberspace, leading to a bitter flame war
among several proponents. On reflection the reasons for this nasty
confrontation turn out to be closely connected to the possibilities
praised in my previous remarks. The questioner, actually a rather
withdrawn, courteous person, was simply unaware of the impact a
single word could have in an environment that carries no collateral in-
formation on the personal bearing and attitude of the speaker/writer.
This sort of disembodiment is quite possibly a remedy against stifling
prejudice, but it can also severely disturb social interaction. 9
One ambivalent phrase, not embedded within the usual context
of situated know-how, dropped into a digitally enhanced community,
can trigger a completely unforseen chain of reactions, possibly lead-
ing to the self-destruction of the group. Electronic communities are
(somewhat miraculously) built upon transmission techniques and
words alone—and can just as easily be destroyed by hardware fail-
ure or a single inappropriate utterance. Luckily, give-l survived this