Foundations of Virtual Interaction

Joyce Walker examines the increasing inclination to incorporate “real world” interactions and events into the virtual world by studying the attempts to mourn the attacks of 9/11 in online communities and memorials. This idea of renegotiating physical connection by redefining the way we interact with time and space begs the question of: what constitutes a social connection or relationship? Walker would argue that, today, connection does not necessitate  a face to face conversation. While I understand the social transition of community from the physical to the virtual, I would urge us to examine how this transition changes the way we percieve the purpose of human interaction and what this adds to (or takes away from) our collective memory and communities.

My first recollection of a physical custom’s transition to online was with Neopets. When I was in elementary and middle school, everyone had a Neopet. This was an online, fantastical breed of a pet which you could feed, pet, play with, send on play dates, build houses for and so much more. I loved Neopets, but I remember thinking even then: “This is a game, it isn’t like having a real pet.” It was meant, however, to constitute the relationship between a person and their pet.

What I questioned about Neopets then reflects my questions about Walker’s analysis of 9/11 online mourning and Jonathan Harris’s The Whale Hunt. As I interacted with the The Whale Hunt, I discovered the customizability of the experience using the various filters and the heartbeat monitor. This concept of conveying memory is fascinating, however, what would it be without our preconcieved understanding of the physical? Without having pet our own dogs, we would not understand the concept of petting our neopets. Without grasping what it feels like to have our heartbeat speed up, we would not be able to effectively interact with Harris’s interface. Our virtual interactions are fundamentally build upon our understanding of the physical. The question society must now wrestle with is: In our negotiation of relationships and memory, can we move past the physical or will it always form the basis for our concept of connection? If we can indeed move past it, what comes next? What is the step of human interaction that is beyond the virtual?

One thought on “Foundations of Virtual Interaction”

  1. Your idea that “our virtual interactions are fundamentally built upon our understanding of the physical” is really intriguing. It led me to wonder: what’s an example of something physical (e.g. riding a bike) that can be learned virtually, with no physical experience to refer back to? The first thing that came to mind was driving. I played lots of car-racing video games as a kid, but despite the hours I devoted to those games, not a bit of my virtual “driving” experience lent me any help behind the wheel as a teenager. The virtual reality of driving a car ended up being a heavily dumbed-down version of the actual thing—much like caring for your neopets was a simplified, watered-down experience.
    These anecdotes lead me to believe that the answer to your question, “can we move past the physical or will it always form the basis for our concept of connection?” must be no. Virtual reality, by definition, is an “almost-reality” that can only approximate the true experience. Even if technology develops to the point where we can just spend our days hanging out with holograms instead of actual people, nothing can replace face-to-face interaction as the basis that all our online interactions build upon.Reference

Leave a Reply