Page 37 - Culture Technology Communication

22 Charles Ess

theoretical complementarity or pluralism that attempts to hold to-
gether more than one theoretical approach, using the strengths of
one to complement the limits of another. Such pluralism is manifest
more broadly in just the interdisciplinary dialogues represented
here between philosophy, communication theory, and cultural stud-
ies. This pluralism and dialogue, most broadly, are the theoretical
counterparts to the models suggested especially by Keniston and
Hongladarom; to repeat, they collectively argue for a dual citizen-
ship in a “thin” but global Internet culture and in one (or more) of
the great diversity of local “thick” cultures ideally sustained in an in-
tercultural global village. But while these sketches may serve to sug-
gest the initial outlines of a more complete theory encompassing
culture, technology, and communication, work in this area appears
to only have just begun. 25
Moreover, Richards noted the postmodernist tendency to
sharply distinguish between real and “virtual” identities, so as to
claim that cyberspace represents genuinely radical and revolution-
ary change in our current conceptions of identity, community, etc. In
discussion at CATaC’98, Richards suggested that, nonetheless, “the
individual voices of cyberspace are somehow still embodied, and
thus still connected to physical and thus cultural realities.”
Richards’ analysis on this point can be fruitfully compared with the
work of Susan Herring, who has now extensively documented gen-
der differences in the ostensibly “gender blind” spaces of CMC (Her-
ring 1999a).

Theoretical Issues and Questions: Embodiment and Gender
Steve Jones, in his summary comments on CATaC’98, reiterated the
importance of more attention to the issues of embodiment and gen-
der. Gender is addressed, for example, when Maitland and Bauer
note that network diffusion is positively affected by Hofstede’s cul-
tural dimensions of gender equality—and, in this volume, in
Wheeler’s account of women in Kuwait. While there is no shortage of
research on gender differences and culture (e.g., Smith et al, 1997),
more attention is needed to the construction of gender within given
societies and how diverse expectations concerning gender interact
with CMC technologies.
Indeed, the focus on embodiment and a correlative recognition
that (most) human beings cannot jump out of their embodied/
gendered cultural identities may work in support of Hongladarom’s
model of “thin” but global Internet culture coupled with “thick” local