| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | REVISED. READY FOR REVIEW
Introduction
An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society
Relationships in an Internet Society
Conclusion | >
> | | | | Next... | | | Introduction | |
<
< | This essay posits that because there is an abundance of readily available alternatives created by the condition of the internet, people are more likely to replace current choices than where alternatives are not readily available. This analysis could be applicable to any subject matter where one choice is mutually exclusive with other choices. As discussed below, this replacement thus may affect replacement of intimate partners as well as the replacement of entertainment choices. While there are undoubtedly differences between how people make entertainment choices and intimate relationship choices; on commonality appears to be that the availability of alternative choices plays a role in this process. If so, the net result may be a reduction in the number of long-term intimate relationships (defined as a commitment for at least the remainder of the individuals’ natural lives). | >
> | This essay posits that because there is an abundance of readily available alternatives created by the condition of the internet, people are more likely to replace current choices than where alternatives are not readily available. This analysis could be applicable to any subject matter where one choice is mutually exclusive with other choices. As discussed below, this replacement thus may affect replacement of intimate partners as well as the replacement of entertainment choices. While there are undoubtedly differences between how people make entertainment choices and intimate relationship choices; on commonality appears to be that the availability of alternative choices plays a role in this process.
Once again, you begin
from a tautology: alternatives cannot be chosen if they don't
exist. Agreed.
If so, the net result may be a reduction in the number of long-term intimate relationships (defined as a commitment for at least the remainder of the individuals’ natural lives).
Next step: you conclude,
without further intermediate cogitation, that it "may be" (weasel
words designed to make a non-proposition appear to be thoughtful
moderation) that there will be fewer long-term intimate
relationships, because people have more choices. An experiment on
this point has been underway for the last five thousand years, which
you don't mention, consider, or reflect upon: cities. You notice
that rural Wyoming is different from downtown San Francisco, but you
don't ask whether, after the US became a divorcing culture, rural
divorce rates were lower or higher than urban divorce rates, for
example. People have more relationships where there are more people
to relate to. Do they have fewer "long-term" relationships, or even
fewer or less long-lived marriages? | | | An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society | | | Commentators have speculated upon the effect that the internet has on the way in which people meet and begin personal relationships. Some have specifically suggested that the existence of the internet has made infidelity in relationships more common and have explored the specific type of infidelity, called cyber infidelity. Moreover, “[m]atrimonial lawyers have reported seeing a rise in divorce cases due to the formation of such Cyberaffairs” See also Quittner, J. (1997, April 4) Divorce Internet Style. Time, p. 72. | |
>
> | | | | Todd Kendall has written a paper on the effect of the internet on long term relationships and divorce. He notes that “[o]ver the last decade, as home internet access has spread, anecdotal reports of infidelity and divorce associated with the worldwide web have become widespread.” Id. at 2. Kendall further acknowledges that “in such a[n internet] model, the cost of searching for romantic partners, both before or after marriage, is a crucial parameter, and indeed, it may be argued that the internet has lowered these costs substantially.” Id. However, Kendall argues that the internet provides features that will also have the effect of reducing the divorce rate such as providing better and longer searches for a long-term partner, which ultimately results in better matches. Id. at 4-5. Logically extended, however, this could also mean that the number of long-term relationships will be reduced by the condition of the internet because people will continue their “searches” throughout their entire lives rather than selecting a single individual for a long term relationship. Kendall ultimately concludes that the varying long term effects and ultimate long term consequences of the internet on divorce are less than clear. Id. at 16. | |
<
< | I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships. While many believe that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships. While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because, based on my own observations of peoples' behavior in my home-town, as well as the observations of others--that often the reason that people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. Consequently, the availability of potential new partners to replace an existing partner presented by the internet may decrease the number of long-term relationships. | >
> | There's no data here.
Obviously, there couldn't have been "anecdotal reports" (another name
for "contemporary folklore") about infidelity and divorce related to
the Web before there was the Web. We don't talk much about
infidelity and divorce related to "moving pictures" much anymore, or
related to automobiles either, because we've come to take them for
granted. Every divorce has a "cause," which of course doesn't mean
that whatever it is "causes" divorce. What causes divorce is
marriage.
I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships.
In other words, you
don't disagree that there's no basis for a conclusion, but you're
going to reach it anyway.
While many believe that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships.
Really? As I pointed
out last time, demographers currently report dropping rates of
marital fracture among highly-educated urban couples, and
persistently high rates, above 50%, of marital dissolution among
less-educated less culturally privileged couples. Apparently, if one
likes jumping to silly sociological conclusions on the basis of scant
evidence, more educated searching produces more durable
relationships. Of course, you still haven't addressed the difference
between "relationships" (your ostensible subject) and "marriages,"
which are something else again.
While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because, based on my own observations of peoples' behavior in my home-town, as well as the observations of others--that often the reason that people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. Consequently, the availability of potential new partners to replace an existing partner presented by the internet may decrease the number of long-term relationships.
Maybe it will simply
complete the desertion of monogamy. Perhaps people will accept in
the age of the Net what most couples have implicitly accepted
throughout history, that the seeking of sexual variety (by at least
the dominant sex) is not a particularly sound reason for breaking up
the economic and parenting partnership that is marriage? Why did you
construct the false dichotomy between "more opportunities for
experience" and "fewer long-term relationships"? If two people are
married to one another, and each also has several durable extramarital
involvements, has the number of long-term relationships gone up or
down? | | | Conclusion
Even if it is correct, however, that the number of long-term relationships will be reduced in the future, this is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monogamous relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships easier to replace may cause a reduction in the number of future long-term relationships. | |
<
< |
Oh, Brett. I recognize that there isn't much to say about your paper that Eben hasn't covered, but I feel compelled to comment--- your paper is simply too offensive not to. I won’t repeat what he’s said, but I just want to say that if you expect to be taken seriously as a person or as a scholar, you might want to consider toning down (if you can’t bring yourself to drop it) the blatant and frankly kind of weird sexism pervading this piece. It’s just gross.
On another note, hi, I’m from Wyoming, too, and I’ll be damned if we don’t have TV, radio, and gee, even the Internet (and for the record, I have never once considered dating my cousin, thank you very much). It’s not that I don’t think being from a rural place, particularly Wyoming, doesn’t mean something different in the very technological age in which we live (I do), but your depiction of Wyoming as a place entirely removed from “technology” writ large is not true now, if it ever was. It’s as unfair and inaccurate as anything else in your paper, which means it warrants revision.
-- DanaDelger - 23 Jan 2010
Dear Dana,
I am going to post a revised version of the paper that will most likely eliminate the parts that you found so “sex[ist]” and “gross” in large part because I do not have the space to analyze all of the issues and address Professor Moglen's comments so I have divided the topic. However, in light of your allegations please explain exactly what you found “sexist” and “gross.” Was it my observation that men are generally bigger and stronger than women? Was it my observation that me generally used to have an advantage in jobs that required physical labor such as throwing 100 lb bales of hay over their head onto a buck-wagon all day long and that physical advantage is no longer an advantage in most careers? Is it my observation that women are no longer finically dependant on men as they once were? If so, I stick by those observations.
Frankly, I feel that it is a very cheap and immature tactic to rely on allegations of sexism in lieu of real analysis to support your position. Since you took the time to comment on my essay please quote language from my original essay, explain the meaning that you attribute to such language, and explain why that language is sexist or gross.
With respect to the Wyoming issue I was certainly not disparaging the state. I hope to retire there one day. The technological picture I outlined was simply a recounting of my childhood. Also, if you would like to visit my home-town I will be happy to introduce you to more than one couple who are married to their second cousins. That is not disparaging—it is simply a fact.
-- BrettJohnson - 24 Jan 2010
This paper’s introductory paragraph is misleading and should probably be cut out. The relevant dichotomy is not the Wyoming of yester-year v. the Internet wired world of today. It is the world before and after the Internet. Moreover, it is simply misleading to speak in terms of “long-term relationships.” This paper has nothing to say about relationships with friends, family, or business associates. This paper is about sexual relationships, which are merely one type of relationship that may or may not be “long term.”
The basic thesis of this paper, which is never clearly stated, appears to be (1) that the Internet permits individuals to cheaply (and successfully) search far and wide for a desirable sexual partner at a low cost and (2) that this will cause people to have shorter-term sexual relationships. Neither part of this two-part thesis seems to be well supported by any empirical evidence. Has the Internet had an effect on divorce rates? Marriage durations? Providing empirical answers to these questions or any number of others might help improve this paper.
Furthermore, the effect of the Internet on sexual relationships may be different among teens, college age persons, and adults. It may be different for different races or classes. The point is that this paper provides the reader with no definition of “long-term” and does not define who it is really talking about. On average, individual definitions of “long-term” probably change as one ages and cultural definitions of “long-term” may be different within different segments of the American population.
-- StephenClarke - 26 Jan 2010
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for your comments. I have revised the essay to hopefully address and clarify some of your concerns. Others, I believe are already addressed--such as divorce rate--to the extent that they can be within the space constraints. Yet others--such as variations of affect upon specific demographics--are far beyond the scope of the essay.
Also, you are certainly correct that the relevant dichotomy is not Wyoming in the 70s and 80s compared with more populous regions today. That was not the intent of the comparison. Rather, the comparison simply serves as an example of people's behavior in a society with very few alternative choices (based both on time-frame and geographic location) on one hand and people's behavior in a society with many alternative choices on the other hand.
Thanks again for your comments and I hope that my revisions addressed at least some of your concerns. | | | | |
<
< | -- BrettJohnson - 26 Jan 2010
| >
> | Apparently the criticism
of your original approach made it necessary for you to dig in, rather
than reconsidering more fundamentally, which I think would have been
a better choice. I agree that you removed some, not all, of the
elements that most troubled your colleagues, but what you're left
with is still a fallacy.
We have moved over the
course of this academic year from essays that reflected no legal or
social analysis and included many factually inaccurate and unchecked
statements to essays reflecting almost no legal and social analysis
from which the glaring factual inaccuracies have been removed. This
is progress to be sure, but slight. This essay now depends crucially
on your ability to find someone who dismisses your argument as
unsupported by real evidence, but which you nevertheless use as
authority for the assertion of the very conclusions even your source
rejects. The whole, as I have pointed out, is based on an illogical
association (more marital dissolution equals fewer long-term
relationships) for which there is at least some partially
disconfirming evidence ready to hand. The whole is no more than a
cocktail of techno-hype: the Net being offered solemnly as a cause of
social "degeneracy" as rock music, TV, radio, cheap literature, and
other cultural novelties have been in their time. Did the
comparatively sudden move from a non-divorcing to a divorcing society
after the Korean War reduce the number of "long-term" relationships?
Did the Pill? Could the Net possibly have a larger effect on these
matters than no-fault divorce and effective convenient contraception?
|
|