Further musings on cyberspace

Alvin Concha | Sociology of Development | MASOR Gender Studies | Ateneo de Davao University
Submitted to Dr Mae Ursos | 10 December 2005

“Cyberspace invites the rethinking of the concepts of culture and

location.”1 When I am in cyberspace, where am I? Am I still present in
my office or home where my computer is, or am I in another dimension
and therefore absent from the physical world? The answer is not easy,
but there might be relevance in at least exposing the discourses
around these questions.

For one, cyberspace is increasingly claimed by academics as their

research field. Because cyberspace is where people meet,
communicate and negotiate with other people, it may also be a site of
interface between researchers and research participants. Because
cyberspace is an area where people’s behaviors are observable, it may
well be an area for doing a variant form of ethnography called
“cyberethnography.”2

But paradigms in the virtual world are potentially different from those
in the physical world. While it can be asserted that the virtual world is
contingent upon the physical world, we cannot ignore the fact that
cyberspace uniquely affords cybercitizens privileges of anonymity,
fluidity of identities and capabilities for them to undermine powers
which are otherwise easily wielded under physical conditions.

If we treat cyberspace and the physical space as two different worlds,

we cannot account for the absence of cybercitizens during the absence
of physical persons. On the other hand, if we treat the two spaces as
two dimensions of one world, then we must necessarily come to terms
with multiplicity and potential contradictoriness of the identities that
slip back and forth or even simultaneously reside in these two
dimensions. I imagine this to be a challenging paradigm. If we are able
to demonstrate in cyberspace, for instance, that people are free to
construct their own sexualities or gender roles to suit their individual
specifications and to render themselves immune to discrimination,
must we assume that these persons are happy even if they live a
physical life deprived of such privileges? Or must we take that these
people have two simultaneous states of happiness for self-actualization
and sadness for discrimination?

1
Kuntsman, A (2004). Cyberethnography as home-work. Anthropology Matters 6(2).
2
Gajjala, R (2000). Cyberethnography: reading each “other” online. [Internet] Retrieved on 28 November
2005. Available at http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/Cyberethnography.pdf
While cyberspace emerges as a new area for communicating with and
observing people, newer paradigms of research are called for in order
to accommodate the unique features of cyberspace. These newer
paradigms should also consist of fresh sets of methodologies and
protocols for research data consolidation, analysis and interpretation.
Yet beyond all these, some thinkers would even invite us to engage in
“post-paradigm thinking.” As to how we could do so is not even clear
to me, but that is probably the point, too. Things may precisely cease
to embody clarity in the post-paradigm realm.