Violet Mae Lim

photo credit: Bermico

People who don’t understand social media often think it’s just a bunch of “stupid status updates.” Well, sure… I guess you could look at it that way but it’s also a huge change in the way we read, understand and communicate with each other. It’s a change in the culture of content consumption.

Two parts of Cory Doctorow’s “How to Say Stupid Things About Social Media” reminded me of two things. First, the underpinnings of social media as linguistic anthropology. In other words, the internet, social networking and social media have changed the way some of us talk to each other and  switch between our online language and offline language. In the same way some people are bi-lingual, the switching of languages reflects and emphasizes identity. By this, I don’t necessarily mean acronyms like LOL or WTF; I mean words that are specific to social networks like “tweet”, “retweet”, and “OH:” (overheard) on Twitter.

Secondly, the “banality” of our online conversations as they relate to small talk in the office or an elevator. On the surface, awkward small talk. As a greater whole in the American culture? A way of building networks/alliances through recognizing personal details and emphasizing casual solidarity. Small talk is a huge part of how people understand and perceive each other.

People who are perplexed by how social networks often completely overlook these points. The points of social networking and small talk are so seemingly simple that they’re complex.

As a student of anthropology, and someone who is attempting to shed light on the methodologies of ethnography in social media, it pains me to see the term “anthropology” being thrown around carelessly or with little thought. In this blog post, I would like to clearly define the study of anthropology and “digital anthropology”.

There are four fields which make up anthropology: archaeology, biological (or physical) anthropology, linguistic anthropology and cultural anthropology. Combined, these four fields are what define anthropology. Additionally, it is within cultural anthropology which cultural anthropologists conduct ethnographies to participate and write about the cultures which they are studying. Ethnography is the bedrock of anthropology.

All of the “digital anthropologists” or studies of “digital anthropology” I have come across are extremely insightful and interesting; however, I believe, they fall under the category of cultural anthropology.

Examples:

• I disagree with the American Anthropological Association’s sub-discipline of “cyborg anthropology”. I would argue that what is defined as “the study of the symbiotic relationships between man and computers” is really the study of how technology shifts and/or growth and how it has affected, affects and will continue to affect humans. Furthermore, not all humans have become “cyborgs”. The extremity of humans “morphing” into cyborgs and the affects of technology range from culture to culture.
• Someone who studies where and how technology and cultures/societies intersect, is not a “digital anthropologist” but rather a cultural anthropologist with an interest in technology paradigm shifts through cultures- once again assuming there are components of ethnography within the study.
• Someone who photographs people or cultures is not a digital anthropologist, but rather a photographer with an interest in people or cultures- as there are no aspects of ethnographic research in photography (unless they are studying the learned culture of photographers in general).

Cultural anthropologists conduct ethnographies by observing then participating in communities. With such radical technology shifts, ethnographies of online communities can be and are successfully accomplished. These ethnographies are “digital”, hence one who is studying and participating in an online community can conduct and write digital ethnographies but is not a “digital anthropologist”.

My post is not to discredit those who study the effects of technology on man, the relationship between computers and humans or those who study online communities (I do this myself), but rather to make the point that “digital anthropology” does not exist. As of now, we cannot study the archaeological artifacts of computers, the bone morphology of technology or the grammar and semantics of pictures. Furthermore, digital anthropology (by definition) means anthropological resources available through machines such as computers.

My goal is to help others understand exactly what anthropology is. Afterall, I still meet people who think anthropologists study dinosaurs. If you have any insights on this topic, I would like to hear them. I can be persuaded into believing almost anything if there is compelling evidence (or after 2 martinis).