The Habitus of Internet Users - Literature review Example

The Habitus of Internet Users 25 January The Habitus of Internet Users At present, it cannot be denied that for societies that can access the Internet, it has become either a minor or major activity to people’s habitus (Gracy, 2007; Yang, Hsu, and Tan, 2010). Pierre Bourdieu defines habitus as: “systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations” (1990, p. 53, cited in Noble and Watkins, 2003, p.522). Nevertheless, issues about Internet usage and its effects on people’s attitudes and behaviours have warranted significant scholarly attention (Bernal, 2010; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009). On the one hand, it can be argued as improving people’s cultural capital through playing various major roles in their daily lives (Cool, Seitz, and Mestrits, 2009; Liu, 2010). On the other hand, it also presents disturbing issues as a disruption to traditional norms and practices and a threat to identity and information privacy (Bernal, 2010; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009). This paper analyzes Internet usage as an element of modern habitus and the issues that come with it. The issues of using the Internet as part of habitus of Internet users are perceptions of the Internet as part of real, everyday life, the dangers of symbiotic relationships between Internet firms and users, and social stratification that results from Internet use. Different people and groups integrate the Internet into their lives in various degrees. Schutz (in Schutz and Luckmann, 1973) states that the daily life-world is “man’s [sic] fundamental and paramount reality’ (p.3 cited in Liu, 2010, p.528). It is the present that concerns and absorbs his energies. Bourdieu’s habitus can be placed in daily life as patterns of conduct that shapes behaviours and everyday activities (Noble and Watkins, 2003, p.522). People use the Internet as part of their various activities, such as to be entertained, to gather information, to share and add to existing knowledge, and to interact with others, among many of its various functions (Cool, Seitz, and Mestrits, 2009). The issue in this section of the paper is the integration, or lack thereof, level of the Internet into people’s habitus. Young people, specifically the Millenials, have grown with the Internet age. The effects of the Internet on their habitus deserve special consideration, since they can carry on these influences in the long run, and create a new habitus of the future that is unlike that of the previous twenty or thirty years. Liu (2010) studied and compared the Internet practices of Chinese and Norwegian high school students using Schutz’ (1970) ideas on zones of interests or relevance. Liu (2010) conducted open-ended in-depth interviews with 25 high-school students in China and Norway. Findings showed that Chinese and Norwegian high school students differed in how they used Internet in their lives. The Chinese used the Internet generally for fun and to escape their worlds, while the Norwegians employed the Internet as an everyday tool for diverse purposes, specifically for instrumental uses, such as seeking information and doing their homework, aside from socialization purposes (Liu, 2010, p.537). The Norwegians have integrated the Internet more into their habitus, which makes them more interested in accessing the Net all the time. In short: “it seems that the Norwegian sample was ‘wired’ for all kinds of purposes whereas the Chinese were ‘wired’ mainly for fun” (Liu, 2010, p.539). In addition, these groups view the Internet’s role in their studies in conflicting manners. Chinese students found the Internet as a delay to their studies, or a distraction, while Norwegian students believed that the Internet helped them improve their academic performance (Liu, 2010, p.539). This perception can be viewed as part of the cultural habitus of the Chinese that see the Net as “devilish” in its effects. The Net can present threats to traditional beliefs and customs, including the political and social systems of the Chinese (Liu, 2010, p.539). The Norwegians, however, see the Internet as an important tool in advancing their academic goals. The Internet can then have a minor or major role in people’s lives, depending also on their cultures and support systems. Since the Norwegians have an open culture and liberal thinking toward the Internet, they are less suspicious of it than the Chinese. The Norwegians have then incorporated the Internet more into their daily lives than the Chinese who see underlying tensions of the Internet with their habitus. Furthermore, there are differences in how people see the reality of the Internet. The Chinese stress that “virtual” is a good metaphor for the Net, which stresses their perceptions that it is not “real” (Liu, 2010, p.542). Some Chinese respondents even agreed that it is this virtual feel of the Internet that makes it attractive (Liu, 2010, p.542). Again, this can be explained through the habitus of the Chinese, who are pressured to have high grades and to follow traditions (Liu, 2010, p.542). The Net has become an escape from the real; the virtual which can ease their real problems and issues, including boredom and family/social pressures (Liu, 2010, p.543). The Norwegians, however, see the Internet as part of their reality. Knut (18-year-old) expressed: ‘The Net is a natural part of us. We use it for everything in our lives, such as entertainment, study, communication and information. We are wired all the time” (Liu, 2010, p.544). These consumers of the Internet use the Net to shape their lives, but at the same time, they also shape its purposes. Hence, from this study, it can be interpreted that Internet is not a strong element of people’s habitus, if it contradicts social norms. People, however, can choose to use the Internet in ways that it becomes embodied into their habitus. If they see the Internet as real and can play major and positive roles in their lives, it can be part of their subjective lives and determine important aspects of their behaviours (Aisenberg, 2008, p.86). Internet users and scholars often agree that the Internet offers benefits to their habitus. The Internet can entertain, share information, add knowledge, and help people achieve diverse personal and organisational goals (Cool, Seitz, and Mestrits, 2009; Liu, 2010). In the area of education, the Internet can serve as a mediator of public pedagogy (Freishtat and Sandlin, 2010). Freishtat and Sandlin (2010) examined the impact of Facebook on how people see and use technology. For them, Facebook serves as a “technologically mediated space that is a pedagogical tool shaped by popular culture, where corporate, government, community, and individual contexts overlap” (Luke, 2005, cited in Freishtat and Sandlin, 2010, p.505). They realised the dangers in how Facebook may be unilaterally directing public discourse and learning. Bernal (2010), in the article, “Web 2.5: The symbiotic web,” explored the advantages and disadvantages of symbiosis through Web 2.5. Web 2.0 refers to the age when users produce and share information online (Bernal, 2010, p.27). Stephen Fry says: “It’s actually an idea that the reciprocity between the user and the provider is what is emphasised” (cited in Bernal, 2010, p.28). The shift from Web 2.0 to Web 2.5 entails the changes of “content providers,” because they can now extract information and use it for various purposes (Bernal, 2010, p.28). People get “free” Internet services, such as Google, MySpace, and Facebook, but they pay it with their personal information (Bernal, 2010, p.28). Google is lauded as starting this process as a successful business model; and in 2009, its revenues went beyond US$5 billion (Bernal, 2010, p.28). Web 2.5, nevertheless, is about the habitus of people that makes or breaks Internet business models. Cool, Seitz, and Mestrits (2009) studied why Google failed to lead and to dominate the online video business. Google was not able to grab the Video opportunity, because it did not focus on the original motivations and interests of online video users, which is mainly, according to surveys, to upload their own videos so that they can be famous, to merely have fun, and to share experiences with friends (Cool, Seitz, and Mestrits, 2009, p. 21). Google used its Google Video to offer searching captions for TV shows without giving access to actual videos, making it more of a video search engine than a video-sharing website. YouTube, on the opposite, answered fundamental needs of sharing user-generated content (UGC), including copyrighted material (Cool, Seitz, and Mestrits 2). YouTube was more successful than Google Video because the former became part of people’s habitus of sharing information and images with others. This case demonstrates that people’s habitus can impact the Internet’s business models and strategies too. Furthermore, the paradox of using the Internet is palpable in its advantages and threats. When Luke (2005) described the Net as “spaces at once private and, paradoxically, public” (p.2 cited in Freishtat and Sandlin, 2010, p.518). McClure (2000) compared the Western and technological frontiers: “Like the western frontier, this e-frontier is fraught with contradictions” (p.476, cited in Freishtat and Sandlin, 2010, p.518). Facebook has its own habitus that impinge on existing habitus of people. People, however, continue to exert their influences through their dominant practices and values. The Internet also intersects issues of social stratification with concerns for the Digital Divide. Zillien and Hargittai (2009) are concerned of the knowledge-gap theory, which argues that high-status people tend to benefit more from technological and knowledge resources than the poor (p.277). Mass media, including the Internet, should serve as a social equaliser, since people’s habitus will be standardised through accessing the same technological tools. Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien (1970) did not agree with this, because people of high-status have the skills, knowledge, and capital to use technology more effectively and to also produce its content (cited in Zillien and Hargittai, 2009, p.277). In particular: Higher media competence, a higher knowledge level, relevant social connections, and more selective media use all result in an advantageous starting position for higher-status persons concerning the utilization of media information. (Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien, 1970, p.162 cited in Zillien and Hargittai, 2009, p.277). Zillien and Hargittai (2009) showed findings that the Internet benefitted people from the higher class than low-class participants. Those with more resources increased their capital by using the Web. Their study indicates that the Internet may be more beneficial to the rich, because their habitus is aligned in mastering the Internet’s potential. Culture and related zones of interests and relevance can affect the consideration of the Internet as part of the habitus of modern generations. Bourdieu has offered a useful theory and concept of habitus in understanding Internet use and its impact on human behaviours. Its advantages are its consideration of cultural capital that shapes and is affected by habitus, and it intersects the experiences of people and how they actively shape their subjective realities. The drawbacks of his theory are the resulting stereotyping of classes and over-emphasis on culture. Weber’s power-domination model can be used in this case, because it understands power struggles among classes, where the Internet can be seen as a powerful tool of the elite ruling class. However, it cannot effectively explain gender and cultural capital. Leibniz offers the formation of society through individuals (McDonough, 2008), which can also explain how makers of Internet firms shape social attitudes and behaviours. His theory, nevertheless, lacks the subjective analysis of culture in the formation of daily practices. I agree with Bourdieu that the Internet can be seen as an element that can shape people’s habitus. How people use the Web can impact their decisions and actions in life. It can even shape their viewpoints and attitudes. Nevertheless, I believe that people are also individuals that shape social forces. People can choose to either allow the Internet to be a major or minor part of their habitus or not. Finally, I learned from this module and themes that individuals are both producers and consumers of information and technologies. They should not, however, undermine how technology can also be used as a tool to preserve the status quo social conditions, including existing social inequalities. Bibliography Aisenberg, A., 2008. Bourdieu, ambiguity, and the significance of events. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 19 (2), 82-98. Bernal, P. A., 2010. Web 2.5: The symbiotic web. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24 (1), 25-37. Cool, K., Seitz, M., and Mestrits, J., 2009. YouTube, Google, and the rise of internet video. Kellogg School of Management, 1-25. Freishtat, R.L. and Sandlin, J.A., 2010. Shaping youth discourse about technology: technological colonization, manifest destiny, and the frontier myth in Facebooks public pedagogy. Educational Studies, 46 (5), 503-523. Gracy, K.F., 2007. Moving image preservation and cultural capital. Library Trends, 6 (1), 183-197. Liu, F., 2010. The Internet in the everyday life-world: a comparison between high-school students in China and Norway. Comparative Education, 46 (4), 527-550. McDonough, J.K., 2008. Leibnizs two realms revisited. Nous, 42 (4), 673-696. Noble, G. and Watkins, M., 2003. So, how did Bourdieu learn to play tennis? Habitus, consciousness and habituation. Cultural Studies, 17 (3/4), 520-539. Yang, C., Hsu, Y., and Tan, S., 2010. Predicting the determinants of users intentions for using YouTube to share video: moderating gender effects. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 13 (2), 141-152. Zillien, N. and Hargittai, E., 2009. Digital distinction: status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (2), 274-291. Read More