There have never been more ways to communicate with one another than there are right now.

Personal Connections in a Digital Age by Catherine Gebhardt There have never been more ways to communicate with one another than there are right now. However, the plentiful variety of communication tactics and strategies poses more questions about how to communicate than ever before. In her novel,personal Connections in the Digital Age, Nancy Baym explores the core relational issues that media serve to enhance and disturb in the digital age. Baym is an academic who was formerly a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. She was a member of the founding board and former president of the Association of Internet Researchers and serves on the board of several academic journals dealing with new media, communication and digital technology. She has published research and provided commentary on topics of communication and new media. As a seasoned expert in the communication field and the effects media has and continues to play, Baym offers a thorough exploration of what it is like to communicate and form relationships with one another in a digital world and the implications and challenges of doing so. Much has changed in the digital sphere since her book was published in 2010; however, offering a critical perspective towards the roles of digital media in personal relationships and how to make sense of these changes is even more prevalent now than three short years ago. 1. NEW FORMS OF PERSONAL CONNECTION Baym begins her exploration of the implications for personal connections in the digital age with the preface that it is a somewhat controversial topic. By this, I mean that on the one hand, people express concern that our communication has become increasingly shallow while for others, new media offer the promise of more opportunity for connection with more people, a route to new opportunities and to stronger relationships and more diverse connections. Naturally, with this new media come new boundaries. However, it seems that boundaries are actually eliminated as those of space and time are no longer issues when it comes to communication. One cannot talk about the implications of these new media without understanding Baym s seven key concepts that define the offered capabilities of the new media that many of us have never previously considered, in both positive and negative lights. 1. Interactivity: I think it goes without saying that the Internet is interactive by nature. We can communicate through so many more channels than ever were available to us previously. People question the ingenuity of these interactions, but the argument can be made that the internet gives rise to new possibilities for interacting with one another. 2. Temporal structure: New media and technology now offer us the capability of traversing across time when communicating, something that has never been possible for face-to-face communication. Synchronous and asynchronous communication media both have positive and negative implications, as we can interact with those we want to communicate with even when we cannot be simultaneously engaged. However, this also enhances the stress we feel when we are always turned on. 3. Social cues: I would argue that this is the biggest point of controversy when people think of new media replacing and eliminating older, more traditional forms of communication. Social cues that

provide us information regarding context, the meanings of messages, and the identities of the people interacting are largely absent. Many question how social communication can happen in a time and place and forum in which social cues are obselete. This is a point Baym pays much attention to later in the book. 4. Storage: Another instance where we can now transend time as messages are no longer of the moment and then gone forever, but have the capability of being stored over and across the constraints of time. 5. Replicability: We cannot define or limit the extent to which our messages endure as they can be replicated, retrieved, saved and redistributed endlessly. 6. Reach: Now more than ever, media vary in the size of audience they can attain or support. Gatekeeping and geographic boundaries have largely been eliminated as communication is more and more often one-to-many. 7. Mobility: Our communications are more portable than ever before as well. We are essentially never out of touch and are in contact perpetually. WIth these seven concepts explicitly stated, we can begin to better understand the similarities and differences between face to face communication and mediated interaction. By outlining these concepts, Baym allows us to see for ourselves how features of digital media affect communication. She says it best by summing up that we are still standing on shifting ground in our efforts to make sense of the capabilities of digital media and their social consequences. New media are constantly developing, new populations are taking up these tools, and new uses are emerging. By expressing why we are so uncertain of digital media and their affects, wanted and unwanted, on our communications with others, she makes it clear that we still have much to learn. 2. MAKING NEW MEDIA MAKE SENSE There are always new forms of media emerging, and we are always trying to make sense of them. Baym asserts that to understand new media and technology, we need to consider both the technological features of a medium and the personal, cultural, and historical presumptions and values those features evoke. So it s not just about the technology, but how we make sense of it, that is new to us and changing our world. This chapter was fascinating because Baym explained different perspectives towards technological change and media that help explain their cultural and social effects and implications. She contends that there are two distinct attitudes that people take towards the effects technology has on them, or for others, the effects they allow technology to inititiate: 1. Technological determinism machines change us. It seems to me that this is the majority of us. We tend to think that technology is an external agent that acts upon and changes society. And this no new attitude towards new technology. As far back as the invention of writing, people have opposed the radical changes technology can imply for civilization and humanity. After living in a world for so long that is hard to imagine without the tool and technology of a writing system, I would argue that very few would oppose the

invention and use of writing. It is important, too, to realize that people are not victims of change and are not powerless to its effects positive and negative but rather coexist in a world where new media is constantly being introduced and built upon. 2. Social construction of technology people have the power. This theory focuses on how technologies arise from social processes and are built to fix negatives and enhance positives as we pick and choose. While technologies can have unintended consequences, they are created by humans and for humans to alter their life world in such a way to make life easier, faster and better. Whether we see them as such or not, technologies are social structures because new technologies and their uses as consequences are social factors. Baym s argument is exceptionally valid because she presents two sides and perspectives of an argument that has many players for both sides. While we learn in her concluding chapter that she explicitly supports new media, she explains both perspectives in such a way that both are agreeable and based on truths. 3. COMMUNICATION IN DIGITAL SPACES At this point, Baym looks at what it actually means to communicate in a digital sphere and what goes into this communication. It s more than the words we write and the content we create, but we put aspects of our identity into every form of communication we foster. How effective can digital communication be? The digital sphere is so far separated from our physical selves and identities that shape communication with our social cues everything from the pauses we take between sentences and the eye contact we make with our communicator. But Baym professes that communication carries on because we have adapted to put these social cues into our digital communications. We experiment with mixed modalities to differentiate our messages and ensure our message is sent over the most effective medium. As in the physical sphere, there are contextual influences on communication online as well that Baym brings to light: Communication is also shaped by large social forces we have incorporated into our own identities and carry with us into our mediated interactions. Thus, our online communications and style are not distinct and separate from those communicated in real time and face-to-face, because we carry the cues over and across forms. We can even liberate ourselves from boundaries that prevent us from communicating effectively when online boundaries like gender and culture. Social identities including, but by no means limited to, gender and culture affect how people act and how their messages are perceived. This means that people communicating through media have in turn shaped the media themselves Baym proves we are always adapting with and around technology. The social structures that shape us and our potentials manifest in our communication, identities, relationships, communities, and networks online just as they do offline. 4. COMMUNITIES AND N ETWORKS People were wary and doubtful of the implications of the writing system as a technology when it was first introduced. People were wary of the telephone. People were wary of the computer. And now, people are wary of media that is new to this day and age and how it shapes our connections. people tend to doubt the authenticity of social connections sustained through new media and

question their impact on interpersonal, local, and national civic and political engagement. Rightfully so, people typically doubt whatever is new and different because the effects can be tremendous. As far as new and social media, the effects are tremendous as they relate to connecting us with others, to communities. And this creates confusion in itself as no one has ever been able to agree what exactly community means. What does a community entail? Factors like space, practice, norms, resources, support, identities and relationships can all be shared to some degree to constitute a community of sorts. Baym comes up with five factors that work together to define and form a community: 1. Space. This is the first factor many of us think of when we think of community. While communities change over time as we relocate and shift, and while some communities don t exist in the physical sphere but online instead where location is more or less obsolete we seek first to connect and communicate with those around us. While the Internet and technology now allows communities to foster in the absence of space, even Baym lists it as a top factor, arguing that online communities were first created to foster and build the local geographic community 2. Practice. This means our habits and behaviors that our communities are formed with those who have similar or the same routinized behaviors as us. This too makes sense. When we think of our circle of friends or our network of general acquaintances, we can probably match people into categories of sorts based on our habits and behaviors. For example, I have friends I would invite to coffee where we can sit and talk and catch up, while others I would rather invite to see a movie or engage in an activity where talking is not a priority. While we can have different sectors of our community for different behaviors, Baym asserts that shared practices entail norms for the appropriate use of communication. 3. Shared resources and support. Baym defines this as social capital which can be either bonding or bridging. Bridging capital is exchanged between people who differ from one another and may not share strong relationships. On the other hand, bonding capital is usually exchanged between people in close relationships. This is not really something I d thought of before that the Internet has more capacity for bridging capital because strangers can provide and receive social support in online groups, therefore :contributing to one another s accumulated social capital. 4. Shared identities. This means a sense of who we are. This too can take place online and off because shared identities happens when people assume roles by enacting consistent and systematic behaviors that serve a particular function. We can identify with friends we meet in different organizations like UGA alumni or English teachers or online like in a chat room for fans of online video gaming. 5. Interpersonal relationships. There are many, many ways to form relationships with others, and Baym argues that online groups provide contexts for forming one-on-one relationships as well. Connections can form online just as they can off, and Baym makes sure to note that they can emerge with sufficient human feeling. What I took away most from this chapter was that when you sit down and think about the key components of relationships and communities, they exist in physical and digital spheres. When I take Baym s five key factors and evaluate them, I can see the value in online and digital communities too.

5. NEW RELATIONSHIPS, NEW SELVES? Is our identity split or fragmented if we present part of ourselves to others across multiple digital platforms? What if we use these different platforms to present different sides of ourselves Facebook for our social identity, Twitter for our wit and humor and LinkedIn for our professional selves? Are we constantly becoming new and different versions of ourselves? And how does this shape others perceptions of ourselves? How do relationships with others work when our own identities are fragmented and indefinite? These are all questions Baym aims to elaborate on by asking whether the identities and new connections people construct online are as real as those built offline. The Internet and social networks have tremendous capacity for connecting people and forming relationships. The utopian potential holds for relationships is that we can meet new people and form rewarding new relationships. It isn t that simple though. Baym asserts that there are many positives in the potential to connect with others, despite the notion of shifting identities. We can challenge the social norms of appropriateness by altering the entire relationship development process; people can communicate from different locations and rely on textual and digital nonverbal cues, blending social boundaries between groups. We have the potential to form connections that might not otherwise form by lowering the social risk of communicating with others. Without the social risk of rejection and boundaries like gender and race that arise when communicating in person, communicating can be seen as having a utopian potential. However, this decreased risk also can decrease investment in forming a relationship. If we have no risks in building or forming a connection, there is no consequence to choosing not to progress and build a meaningful relationship. There are plenty of issues Baym brings up about forming relationships online involving identity: Flexibility and multiplicity: Digital media seem to separate selves from bodies, leading to disembodied identities that exist only in actions and words. Cues and competence: Online, as in all media and face to face interaction, we try to manage what other people think of us Our ability to construct an online identity, whether authentic, fanciful, or manipulative is limited and enabled by the communicative tools, or affordances, a platform makes available and our skill at strategically managing them. Personal identity: Strategic management is essential to shaping the impressions others form of us. Social identity: We build self representations by linking to others identities are contextualized with those around us. Honesty: Baym believes that, to the extent online self-representations are grounded in explicit connections with identifiable others it is difficult to create online selves that wander too far from the embodied ones. Authenticity: Regardless of how we present ourselves in digital environments, in most encounters others will have fairly limited cues with which to interpret us, and may or may not make of them the meanings we had intended.

6. DIGITAL MEDIA IN RELATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE So after all the affordances of digital media that Baym has already discussed, how does this influence how we connect with one another? Baym brought forth many interesting notes about the phenomena of digital media and relationships. Here are some of my favorite points that got me thinking: People tend to add media as they grow closer. More often than not, we meet in person and then connect later on digital media. This holds true for my own life that weak ties are made in person and can become stronger by connecting in multiple other ways online. In this way, digital media adds another dimension to getting to know one another that can strengthen what is formed in person. However we meet, we form relationships by communicating with each other. Our messages are the tools with which we build and tinker with our connections, and the mirror through which we see them. This does not change if we meet online or off, because we choose how we will communicate, and communication will ultimately choose how a relationship develops. When people meet one another online, especially in media with few identifying cues, they often seem to like one another more than they would if they had met in person. This phenomenon of hyperpersonal communication basically means early idealization. Because media can be asynchronous, it allows people to revise their identities and be thoughtful, caring to present, display and share themselves in the best way possible a way that might not be portrayed as easily and effectively in person. Self-disclosure is one of the most powerful communication practices we have for building a relationship. However, the Internet changes the nature of self-disclosure. Without social risk of meeting and talking in person, people may disclose much sooner or faster expediting the process in which people get to know one another. They also will be much more selective about what they disclose because they have the capability of picking and choosing with no consequences. People in close relationships had high-quality interactions regardless of the medium through which they interacted. This might be my favorite point that Baym made throughout the entire book. It seems there is a debate between online and off-line relationships and communication, as if they are two, distinct, segmented things and one is bad and one is good. I hear so many comments on how digital media is ruining the nature of relationships and changing communication in general for the worse. I think this point of Baym s runs true and strong. She is not saying one medium is better than the other. She is not saying one medium allows for much better or worse communication than the other. She is not saying that a medium changes a relationship. But rather she insinuates that a relationship changes the medium. When it comes down to it, people can communicate in whatever ways they choose and it is the strength of their relationship, not the type of medium, that determines the quality of the interaction. She is so on point and I will use this line when people naively assert that media are ruining communication now and in the future. CONCLUSION Baym s Personal Connections in the Digital Age was a great read. Not because it changed the way I think about anything and everything, but because it challenged the way I think about anything

and everything. She clearly articulates how communication, relationships and digital media play an integral role in affecting the other two. I think my biggest take-away is that things should not be thought of or defined in terms of online and offline. Whether it be online communication or offline communication or online relationships or offline relationships those definitions are only limiting. As a college student, my life is surrounded by social networks. But social media is less likely to change a person s behavior than it is to emphasize a person s behavior: highly sociable people may communicate via any medium they can. Communications through digital media are not separate and distinct from communications in person but rather they allow for continuous relational accessibility, therefore acting as more of an extension than a replacement of in-person communication. Meaningful relationships can be established through media and without media. Baym poses the question, Do new communication technologies undermine or replace face to face relationships? The introduction and utilization of communication technology into relational life does not make us less communicative; the more students reported using the internet to maintain their social relationships, the more likely they were to use face to face conversations, telephone calls, and mail. Social people will be social and will find more ways of being social. Technology and media do have the capability of changing the way in which we communicate with one another, but do not change our communicative capacities and howeffectively we communicate with one another. To sum it up, connections can be just as, if not more personal in the digital age than ever before. It does not depend entirely on the advent and progression of technology, but largely depends on us.