I am delighted to harp on the mediated long-distance relationship that I currently am involved in because unfortunately, it hasn’t been going so well. My girlfriend, who only lives two hours away, and I have been dating for sometime but recently have had to rely on various forms of mediated communication like text messaging, e-mail, Facebook, and phone calls to maintain our relationship. As our use of mediated communication becomes increasingly important, I have realized some not so attractive features about her (interesting that I’m using this blog as a mediated form of self-disclose some current personal information to people I could potentially meet face- to –face). I’ve noticed that although we are both in college and have somewhat similar time consuming activities outside the relationship, I have a different perspective on using these mediations as a form on interaction than she. Most apparent, is her usage of text messages. I find that the “beep!” or nagging vibration every minute is becoming an irritation and that the tasks of actually writing “I love you” or “good morning” have lost its potency. I’m really not insensitive, I swear, but I find that it doesn’t mean as much to me as it does her. This is where I can consider Wallace’s “common ground” factor.
Wallace brings into view the idea of complementary relationships online and discusses how a relationship can become strong with each similar attribute and shared belief. The proportion of those attributes, which represents attributes that you know about someone that is similar to yours, is usually around 100% in initial mediated meetings (the results are so high through a mediated form of communication because it lacks nonverbal stereotypes that come with being in a Ftf situation allowing it to stay close to 100%). My girlfriend and I differ in our beliefs about the use of the medium, which is something that causes initial dissonance. Also, however, I am realizing, not just through text messaging but through e-mail that she is reluctant to inquire about my life here. It has been, for the most part, a “newsflash” tool for her and she has been giving me updates on her life and spends most of her time talking about her. Now this is great, but sometimes it is repetitive and I really don’t need to know that she forgot to bring a pencil to class through an e-mail. It seems like a waste of bandwidth! In turn, our different perspectives have made me recognize some unattractive attributes (like her using a text message for intimate self-disclosure) and it ultimately reduces the proportions of similarities – something Wallace doesn’t really discuss in depth but I find it interesting that we met Ftf and with the mediated form of communication the proportions in the Law of attraction have decreased.
Another relationship factor that Wallace points to is the “physical attractiveness” factor. She states, “The powerful magnet of interpersonal attraction in real-life settings, dismaying though it may be, is physical attractiveness.” Moreover, she describes that physical attractiveness has consequences that affect our perceptions about others and can lead to positive or negative effects on other people as well. Why do I consider this when discussing my long-distant relationship with my girlfriend? Shallow as it may seem, I am questioning whether Wallace’s “physical attractiveness” was an important role in the initiation and ongoing of the relationship.
However, I think the recognition of unlikable attributes has been working both ways as I can almost guarantee her disapproval of my reluctance to engage in any real self-disclosure through a mediated form of communication—I’ll call this inhibition (or the opposite of Wallace’s disinhibition factor).
Wallace presents these relationship factors in a way to come to conclusions about the interactions on the Net. I think she presents the factors in a way that considers that a long distance relationship is easier to maintain than ever before because of the fast-paced, mediated world we are more than acquainted with. Though, as my relationship progresses and as we rely more on e-mails and text messaging, I find we have been on the fringes of a cliff, contradicting what Wallace suggests could be a unique and “enriching an ongoing romantic relationship.” It could just be that my relationship supports the “physical attractiveness” factor in a face-to-face meeting where we think higher of people who are physically attractive. I found it interesting, however, that we initiated and maintained our healthy face-to-face relationship, but now the relationship factors are acting against the relationship and instead of stabilizing it or even increasing self-disclosure; it has become somewhat of a detriment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey Brandon. I really enjoyed reading this post because personally, it is something I can easily relate to. I too, have been in a long distance relationship with my boyfriend that has been forced to rely on various forms of mediated communication, but our relationship also stared with FtF interactions and was then forced to move to mediated interactions. This has proven a detriment to our relationship as well. I think Wallace's and McKenna's relationship factors are well supported and easy to apply to many CMC relationships, and the other article regarding CMC relationships that anticipate future FtF interactions is interesting too, but it does beg the question of how these factors apply to relationships that move from FtF to CMC, not by choice but by necessity. I think when you start a relationship online with anticipated future FtF interactions, these factors definitely make sense as we are forced to self-disclose to people that know nothing about us, and there is definitely an element of excitement that goes along with this process of discovering someone while at the same time being discovered by them. However, if you already have a solid FtF relationship with someone, there is so much less of a necessity to self-disclose to them via mediated communication, as you already know so much about each other, and then you're stuck with listening to bland stories about pencils. Lame and frustrating, indeed. Does going in the opposite direction (FtF to CMC) reverse the rules and make familiarity breed contempt? It sort of seems that way, because the more mediated messages you get and the more you are forced to use various forms of mediated communication, the more frustrating it gets because it just makes you aware of what you once had, and what you don't have any more. Well Brandon, I wish I had the answers, but I definitely feel your pain. Hang in there, pal.
I found you're post really interesting, and (in keeping with Wallace's writing) the amount of self-disclosure in your blog made me want to discuss past personal experiences as well. Over the past few years I've spent a lot of time in long distance relationship and I can relate with many of the frustrations that you mentioned. These relationships are never easy and there are sure to be a number of road bumps. It's difficult having your cell phone turn into a dedicated twitter feed- being constantly updated on your significant other's every movement. For some people it's just a bit too much.
In discussing this with some of my friends, it seems common for one member of the relationship to show the signs of "inhibition" that you mentioned. To compensate for this the other person tends to talk more (specifically about about themselves) in an effort to fill the communicative void. But this just ends up compounding the problem more. Unfortunately, I don't know of any full proof advice.
I hope things work out for you. Hang in there.
I’m sorry that your relationship isn’t working out as well as you would have hoped, Brandon. It seems like your girlfriend is trying to make it feel like you two aren’t hundreds of miles apart by updating you on the minute details of her life. In the process, she seems to have bothered you both with things that you consider trivial and things you consider too intimate to relate via text message. I think it’s interesting, and you brought this issue up as well, that you don’t seem to like making self-disclosures through mediated forms of communication, but you did make intimate self-disclosures to your COMM 245 class. Joinson would probably point to your perceived visual anonymity, increased private self-awareness and decreased public self-awareness to explain this dichotomy. To a certain extent, being in such a large class gives one the illusion of being anonymous, even though it is entirely possible that you will meet other green bloggers in person one day.
I hope your relationship problems get resolved soon.
Post a Comment