Unreal friends
Ethics and Information Technology 2 (4):223-231 (2001)
| Abstract | It has become quite common for people to develop `personal'' relationships nowadays, exclusively via extensive correspondence across the Net. Friendships, even romantic love relationships, are apparently, flourishing. But what kind of relations really are possible in this way? In this paper, we focus on the case of close friendship. There are various important markers that identify a relationship as one of close friendship. One will have, for instance, strong affection for the other, a disposition to act for their well-being and a desire for shared experiences. Now obviously, while all these features of friendship can gain some expression through extensive correspondence on the Net, such expression is necessarily limited –you cannot, e.g., physically embrace the other, or go on a picnic together. The issue we want to address here however, is whether there might be distinctive and important influences on the structure of interaction undertaken on the Net, that affect the kind of identity ``Net-friends'''' can develop in relation to one another. In the normal case, one develops a close friendship, and in doing so, one''s identity, in part, is shaped by the friendship. To some extent, through extensive shared experience, one comes to see aspects of the world (and of oneself) through the eyes of one''s friend and so, in part, one''s identity develops in an importantly relational way, i.e., as the product of one''s relation with the close friend. In our view, however, on account of the limits of, and/or the kind of, shared contact and experience one can have with another via correspondence on the Net, there are significant structural barriers to developing the sort of relational identity that is a feature of close friendship. In arguing our case here, and by using the case of Net ``friendship'''' as our foil, we aim to shed light on the nature and importance of certain sorts of self-expression and relational interaction found in close friendship. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesCaroline J. Simon (1993). Just Friends, Friends and Lovers, Or…? Philosophy and Theology 8 (2):113-128.
Mary Healy (2011). Should We Take the Friendships of Children Seriously? Journal of Moral Education 40 (4):441-456.
Joyce L. Jenkins (1999). The Advantages of Civic Friendship. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:459-471.
John Lippitt (2007). Cracking the Mirror: On Kierkegaard's Concerns About Friendship. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61 (3):131 - 150.
Dean Cocking & Jeanette Kennett (2000). Friendship and Moral Danger. Journal of Philosophy 97 (5):278-296.
Jeanette Kennett & Steve Matthews (2008). What's the Buzz? Undercover Marketing and the Corruption of Friendship. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (1):2–18.
Bennett W. Helm, Friendship. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Adam Briggle (2008). Real Friends: How the Internet Can Foster Friendship. Ethics and Information Technology 10 (1).
Dean Cocking & Jeanette Kennett (1998). Friendship and the Self. Ethics 108 (3):502-527.
Zena Hitz (2011). Aristotle on Self-Knowledge and Friendship. Philosophers' Imprint 11 (12):1-28.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads135 ( #3,245 of 549,113 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,205 of 549,113 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
