Internet Retribalization
Currently, there is concern that large numbers of Internet users will self-select into groups that share their own interests, attitudes, and beliefs. Individuals will choose their own digital neighborhoods and ignore the diversity offered by the Internet. Instead of a unified global village, Thimbleby (1998) argues that the Internet will create a "glocal" environment. A place in which "the local is global, and the global is local". Although the Internet allows people with similar interests to find each other, individuals can form their own segregated homogeneous group that is not exposed to diverse ideas.
Retribalization is a term used to describe the formation of separate Internet groups. For example, Mandel and Van der Leun (1996) argue that the Net is a tribal society. They state:
In the Net, as in the world, people tend to gravitate to groups and associations that, as individuals, they perceive will be comfortable or in their interests. One can join and be a 'member' of very large organizations-the corporation, the ACLU, the NRA-but one becomes a 'part' of a group.
Over time, online groups develop their own rituals and customs out of their shared history. The tribal nature of the Internet described by Mandel and Van der Leun depicts a situation in which people break apart into small tribes rather than unite into a larger, interdependent global village.
Moreover, Shenk (1997) has asserted that Internet society could become fragmented and result on increasing political polarization: "In 1994, the first major political survey of Internet politics revealed, not surprisingly, a virtual world in a state of hyper-fragmentation". Instead of meeting other people to discuss and debate issues of common social concern, members of online groups would gather to promote their own interests and reinforce their own points of view. People who disagree with the group would be excluded from the discussion. Thus, people will only hear one side of an argument and ignore or flame people who do not agree with them. As a result, online groups would reinforce the fragmentation of modern society instead of nurturing convergence. Instead of providing a democratic atmosphere in which citizens could discuss diverse perspectives, the Internet could highlight social differences. On a more personal level, Stoll (1995) is concerned that computer networks will isolate people from each another, rather than bring them together.
As previously discussed, flaming behavior and heated debates often promote intolerance and conflict. For example, Steinberg (1994) states: Because a newsgroup is a public space-inexpensively accessible by many people and controlled by no one-it takes only a few prolific users to pollute it with garbage. When adding your two cents costs nothing, neither ignorance of the subject nor lack of relevance seems to keep people from contributing.
Finding a balance between freedom of expression and disruptive discourse is difficult. If people only participate in groups and discussions that support their views, they may not hear all perspectives. People expressing diverse opinions contribute to interesting discussions on the Internet, and the openness of Internet communication has been an important aspect of the formation of Internet culture. But, if total freedom is allowed on the network, discussion groups can degenerate into uselessness. When this happens, important messages are buried beneath misleading and irrelevant ones.
Styles of online discourse, including flaming and writing skills, can also separate people. For example, substandard rhetorical abilities and social affiliations can prevent people from contributing to discussion groups, even though such groups are considered equal and democratic. According to Hert (1997), the Internet allows anyone to participate in a discussion, however; this is not what really happens. For instance, rhetorical skills and the prestige of publishing can influence online interactions in academic discussion groups. People who are published and have excellent written communication skills have a higher status in groups, and they sometimes discourage participation from others.
In contrast to the idea that the Internet will nurture democratic principles and greater tolerance toward others, messages distributed through the Internet often support the formation of small ideological groups that separate off from others. Technologically, the Internet is a decentralized method of communication, and it could be used to revitalize the democratic process. However, ideological differences, flaming behavior, and rhetorical skills can discourage equal online participation. Although the technology enables us to equally participate, human behavior often leads people to form small tribes rather than a large village.