What happens when a major component, such as fieldwork, suddenly has no "new" places to go? That is, anthropology is rather famous for exploring unknown cultures and people, going to live with forgotten indigenous tribes scattered across the globe, far from the clutches of telephones, TV, wifi and gasoline. Yet, as the world is shrinking rapidly, what is left to explore?
The answer is not a depressing one, although not as adventurous as traveling through forests and deserts. What is increasingly happening, across the globe, is a process of virtualization. That is, things are changing, new things are emerging, but they are doing so in a virtual space. Nevertheless, it is real. We have real conversations, spread news, communicate, make content, debate and do everything we have always done, except now we have a virtual grid to do it on.
A virtual space, particularly one that although is emerging rapidly, is still largely unexplored by social scientist pioneers.
This isn't a complaint as much as an observation, after all, the "real" world has just as much influence as ever. Politics, economics, war, famine, stratification; these things exist in the physical world just as much as they always have, and unfortunately so. They haven't been solved yet (will they ever)? So a majority of our efforts and research and activism has been abundantly provided for these world wide social issues.
Social scientists take note, however, that the world is a changing place and never remains stagnant.
The internet is not so much (as it once was) a detached, abstract place in which we could escape from reality. Very quickly, it is replacing most forms of communication technology. Everything is becoming digital, from relationships to communities. A lot of the world is increasingly "online," as the world-wide-web becomes embedded into the world, and not the other way around. We could consider it a platform for real action, and that's what many are doing. In other words, the virtual-sphere is becoming an integral player in the world. It has provided the means for the WTO Seattle 1999 protests, if you recall. It's becoming an active ingredient in studying society, because people are beginning to use it in every day life.
Although still in its development, this virtual "sphere" that is growing layer upon layer, vine by connective vine, is transforming the way people behave, and the very structures of society. Many argue it has little effect against the mega-giants; those banks, trusts, nations and big businesses that cause stratification across the globe. And, to some extent, yes, this is true. We aren't living in anywhere near a digital utopia, but take heed skeptics, that such phenomenon has happened before, and it has great potential to alter the way a society is structured, the way it behaves, and who holds the power.
Also, as a sociologist, one thing I have noticed is that people tend to start using something before they become aware of what they're doing. A phenomenon kicks up, and then we reflect upon what we're doing, why we're doing it. In the same way, ironically, us sociologists use our cell phones, email, read blogs like this and communicate within social networks. But after some time and significant development of these new mediums, it begins to affect us. As sociologists, and social scientists in general, this would seem like a wonderful opportunity to not just be using the internet as tools, but to analyzing how and why, and to what affect these mediums have upon us?
I guess to simplify, it goes like:
new techno-social changes occur-> self-reflection-> greater understanding of what we're doing and why.
To speak philosophically, our self-awareness evolves, folds over on itself before expanding again with new and greater potential.
With all that in mind, it would seem that social scientists have a gold mine of new places to excavate and explore. New, literal ecosystems of minds and ideas, people and communication are all over the globe. They behave differently than previous generations. All in all, the world is ripe with change and a bizarre tendency to fold over on itself, complicating, enriching, internalizing, virtualizing. Why wouldn't this be a fascinating place for field work? That being said, I'd just like to put a quote from the article here:
A: Like other social scientists, anthropologists shouldn't make predictions. We would prefer to offer a scenario -- in which fieldwork comes to conform to an increasingly refined, rigorous and concrete model of just the sort whose crafting we are pursuing in Fieldwork Is Not What It Used to Be. If it does so, it will among other things stand in rough analogy to the architectural model, crafted and recrafted in the studio from one critical pedagogical encounter to the next.
