Lightweight social interactions in a loosley coupled offline world

The first generation of Internet users learned (and created) the online social models through the nature of the protocol itself.  A back and forth relationship.  Make a request, get a response.  

But the model has evolved into a sort of graffiti approach to the online social model.  People flag things, tag things, rate things, annotate and comment, link to things, blog about things, etc.  The art of flirting through lightweight notifications gets the teens spinning with gossip.  There's less of an on/off experience and more of a data soup happening out there.

Unfortunately, I still have to define my friends and co-workers into 2 distinct and separate identities in my IM tool.  I'd much rather use tags to identify my relationships with people.  I'd prefer to see whatmycolleaguesread.memeorandum.com.  I want playlists from my brother and his 1st degree friends who also obssess on music.  

Does this have meaning in an offline world, too?  Could we alter our commitments to traditional structures so they are less about the man-made constructs that once made sense to new constructs that serve a more interconnected world?  

For example, My mother and stepfather have been loyal Republicans since they were children, and they voted for George Bush (twice) because of that loyalty more than any other factor.  Despite their desire to remain faithful to the system, they are now torn with frustration.  (Strangely, the straw that broke them was when Bush nominated his personal friend to the Supreme Court.)

It makes me wonder if we'll start to view our political system in a much less binary way because of this cultural phenomenon happening online.  I can't possibly agree with every issue my representative votes for.  I would be glad to add value to a political discussion through ratings and tags and pings and blog posts and emoticons.  

But just like I don't want my IM app to tell me that a former colleague who I used to drink with can only be a friend or a co-worker, I don't want such an either/or relationship with my government.  In aggregate, lightweight social data from people could have relevant meaning to decisions made by the people in power if it was possible to contribute that way.

And the idea extends way beyond government.

For example, I want to track the UCLA athletes I remember from school through their trades and professional achievements...I care more about seeing Baron Davis do well than I do about the Warriors who can be difficult to cheer for.  After 5 years together, a wedding and a child, my wife is still facing visa issues that make living in and travelling to and from the United States an annoying experience.  Somebody needs to realize that we are inextricably connected.  We call our baby's physician when she gets sick, but we usually end up on the phone with someone else from the group who may or may not be as helpful.  Shouldn't our friends and family be able to connect us with knowledgeable and reputable doctors who are accessible at the moment we need them?

I suspect that the offline social constructs don't work as well as they did when geopolitical boundaries could be reinforced through the cost of communication and travel.  But there's a new sociology of lightweight interactions out there.  It might be time to reevaluate how that is going to improve the world as we know it on a larger scale.

Does 'loosely coupled' have a similar meaning offline?

Trackbacks: