It would be absolutely naïve to say that it does not, as the use of social media has proven so powerful as to change the fate of entire peoples — by generating social movements and pressure groups through websites like change.org or encouraging entire populations through Twitter to demonstrate against and even topple governments.

However, these exceptional successes should not overshadow overreliance on social media in lieu of real-life, physical, social interaction.

Humans are by nature social animals; we interact with other humans and create societies or networks for survival and growth.

The advent of social media does facilitate the building of such networks and communities, but problems arise when humans forgo their real life, offline interaction and supplant it with a digital life. Extreme examples of this would be people confusing their online identity with their real-life self. 

Such cases are few and far between, but even a mild tendency toward overreliance on social media could impair one’s ability to act socially in a real-life setting.

Interviewed recently on a news channel on this particular topic, Zygmunt Bauman said social media activity does not prepare us for living in a real-life multicultural environment. In daily (real) life, we cannot avoid interaction with strangers, as we will meet them right after leaving the sanctuary of our house — we meet strangers in public transportation, in the streets or when buying groceries — and whether we like it or not, we have to interact with them. 

By contrast, online social life enables us to connect exclusively with those who share similar views and to block those who do not. Excessive reliance on online over offline social activity may lead to at least two outcomes; again, these are extreme scenarios, but we may spot some early symptoms of them.

The first extreme scenario concerns knowledge creation, an essential result of a healthy community. Attracting those with similar thoughts, preferences and opinions, online communities tend to become homogenous groups that exclude individuals or ideas different from their own. 

A closed society is similar to an isolated group of the same species, where inbreeding and separation from their kin outside the group lead to their extinction. A community based on ideas exclusive to its own members not only fosters close-mindedness but blocks avenues of conversation to different views, which would otherwise give rise to new ideas and knowledge. 

If opinionated people with weak (real-life) social skills find comfort in interacting with like-minded individuals through digital channels, they consciously or subconsciously reinforce or even further narrow down their restricted views while rejecting any opposing view. Such an isolated community has lost touch with reality and deprives itself of the benefits from interaction with society at large, such as new knowledge.

Of course, a passionate community of stamp collectors or Game of Thronesenthusiasts is hardly harmful to society at large and its members may even be revered as authoritative references to the subject, but what about communities based on conspiracy theories, fundamentalism or radical ideologies?

Simply google your way through any online group on sensitive issues (e.g. religion) and you will find that comments are usually identical in tone and manner, while opposing comments are rare and those expressing them are often bullied. Ideological or political menaces aside, an isolated community will not gain from nor contribute to society at large.

The second extreme scenario concerns individuality; though seemingly opposed to the concept of a community (in which members have something in common) a healthy society maintains freedom of thought and individuality — even the Vatican promotes scientific thinking within its own state and many professional associations purposely have experts outside their fields as consultants. 

Communities are composed of members with common interests, but this does not connote to uniformity. Overreliance on digital conversations using emoticons, typed and abbreviated words cannot supplant the human touch, voice, body language or handwriting — things that make up one’s individuality in real life.

It is no longer uncommon to see simple physical social interaction replaced by cyber communication; one simply has to go to any restaurant and count how many dating couples or families are busy on their smartphones and tablets rather than talking to each other at the table.

Although the second scenario does not seem as worrying as the first, do we not crave to receive a handwritten note of congratulations rather than a Google-searched picture or smiley on our birthday? Would we not prefer to hear laughter from our friends at our jokes rather than reading LOL or ROTFL on our WhatsApp group? By the way, how many of us can still do longhand — aside from signatures?

Again, the above are admittedly extreme examples of overreliance on online social life at the expense of real, offline socializing. It may be too radical a thought, but next time you hang out with your friends or go on a date with your partner, just leave your smartphone in your pocket or purse and have a decent, normal, human conversation.

***

The writer is the head of strategies at Karsa Ide Karya and teaches advertising and marketing at the University of Indonesia in Depok, West Java.

---------------

We are looking for information, opinions, and in-depth analysis from experts or scholars in a variety of fields. We choose articles based on facts or opinions about general news, as well as quality analysis and commentary about Indonesia or international events. Send your piece to community@jakpost.com. For more information click here.

Popular

Indonesia may offer dual citizenship to attract overseas workers, minister says

Ministry unveils new funding initiative for climate-resilient health system

Sri Mulyani vows to improve customs services