Long distance relationships are a double-edged sword. If you can make them work, they are great. If they fail or become too hard to deal with, the relationship could ruin your life. I have experienced the former. After thinking long and hard about whether or not to post my thoughts on this matter to the world, I have decided to give my own experiences a twist with analyzing them with communication theory. In particular, I have thought about them based on Wallace’s attraction factors entitled ‘proximity’ and ‘common ground.’
The long-distance relationship I have experienced does not include a significant other. Rather, it describes a camp friend of mine, whom I rarely saw due to being distant from each other, but talk(ed) on a consistent basis. At first the online friendship was small (both in content and breadth), but it grew into what is now a friendship that I consider one of the best I have in the world. The first factor that I have chosen to analyze this relationship by, is proximity. Proximity, as stated by Wallace, refers to the closeness, familiarity, and intersection frequency online. Specifically, it, “reflects how often you run into that other person on the net” (Wallace, 1999). The online proximity I experienced (and still experience) during this online relationship is very unique. I first want to state that I know this person from going to camp, so I have knowledge of this person in a physical sense, not just a mirage or fallacy that people can experience by meeting someone online. I feel as though I am very close to this person due to the fact that we connect on the same level during Face to Face, as well as CMC. With that being said, the proximity of our relationship online is strong online due to the high frequency of interactions, the quality of conversations that we are able to hold in a CMC medium, and also due to our personality similarities. We were able to become close and want to ‘intersect’ online because of the fact that we held similar interests and values (conversations would not result in disagreements, and we would both remain engaged with conversations).
The fact stated above brings up another factor stated by Wallace: common ground. This factor contains two parts, being both conversational and categorical. Common ground holds that individuals are attracted to those who have similar interests, beliefs, assumptions, morals, values, and propositions. It makes logical sense that people would want to be around those who hold similar beliefs and likings. The levels of comfort and attraction are high when people with similar personalities interact. In the long-distance relationship I have described, the factor that created such a great friendship was common ground, because we were able to express ourselves freely without being judged, unafraid of what was said because we knew we had similar beliefs. I believe that proximity, the first factor I discussed, comes secondary to common ground. If someone realizes that they have similar interests and beliefs as another person, they will want to ‘intersect’ and interact with that person more frequently. This was certainly the situation that presented itself with the friendship I described above.
From the two factors I have explained (proximity and common ground), I hope you were able to understand how online relationships can and do happen. I believe the foundations for having a strong online relationship lie on those two factors, as well as others that Wallace has described in her book.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_7649.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_5305.html
1 comment:
Hi David,
I really liked your observations about Wallace’s description of proximity. Your example is really good in terms of how you meet often with your friend. I think that instant messaging has really contributed a lot to the amount of proximity people can feel in relationships. The near synchronous chatting that takes place allows for many more intersections than a asynchronous chat would such as forum posts or e-mail. It’s also interesting that you met your friend at camp and then the relationship moved to CMC. I wonder which has more of an effect a relationship; the initial meeting in FtF, or the continuation of a relationship via CMC. Also, I wonder if the relationship had progressed in the reverse order, whether or not this would make any difference in the relationship. Great post!
~Ben
Post a Comment