Cyberspace has become the quintessential term for describing the vagueness and complexity that surrounds human-computer interaction (Adams & Warf 1997). Many people would have been unprepared for the rapid ascension of technology in daily life, let alone the significance that the Internet and World Wide Web would have on almost every aspect of society (Clark Wroclawski, Sollins, & Braden 2002). When something so significant appears in history, man has the need to define it. This is a necessary thing to do in order to provide frameworks for research, study and understanding, to communicate with consistency, and to build on the creation that has been released upon the world.
This
paper will discuss the current literature and commentary attempting to define
cyberspace, with the aim of providing clarity to the definition and its
potential for future use. First, the nature of cyberspace is briefly discussed,
contextualised through the writings of William Gibson. Second, the paper
analyses various ways of defining cyberspace by introducing the functionality perspective and experiential perspective. Third, an
examination of these perspectives reveal that there is a symbiotic relationship
between them, which once recognised, can dilute the often convoluted definition
of cyberspace. The essay concludes, that
by utilising the symbiotic perspective, the greatest
understanding of cyberspace and its future in society can be achieved.
The
term ‘cyberspace’ first appeared when William Gibson released his 1984
science-fiction novel, Neuromancer.
In the book, Gibson describes cyberspace as a “consensual hallucination”,
alluding to the disembodied consciousness projected into a virtual realm by his
character ‘jacking in’ to cyberspace (Gibson 1984). Since that time, the
evolution of technology, and the way society interacts with technology, has
continuously shifted the dialogue of computing (Coyne 1998). Computing was once
considered a rival of human intelligence, due to the threat of Artificial Intelligence
(Coyne 1998). However, the shift of the contemporary human-computer
relationship shows the dissolution of that fear. Computers are now considered an
indispensable component of human activity, and have a significant role in the
lives of millions of people around the world (Abraham 2000). What relationship
do these shifts in technology have to cyberspace? The nature of cyberspace can
be described as dynamic and flexible, shifting more endlessly than the
technology within which it resides (Cobb 1999). Issues of increasing human cognitive
ability have become far less important than the amplification of our vision to
observe aesthetically gratifying graphical interfaces for obtaining the information
that resides within our technology (Heim 1991). Cyberspace is representative of
this change in focus, and has more relevance than ever, as technology becomes
increasingly pervasive throughout all aspects of society (Abraham 2000).
Pralea (2010) makes the point though that “Pervasive as it is, digital technology
cannot account for a universal human experience” (p. 2). Using this thought as
a foundation, cyberspace can be broadly defined as what humans experience it to
be, and what it actually is. This leads to the two perspectives of cyberspace.
The experiential perspective, on one
hand, relates to how humans experience human-computer interaction, attempting
to explain cyberspace through numerous psychological, philosophical and
sociocultural approaches. The functionality
perspective, on the other hand, relates to the more tangible elements
within the human-computer relationship, attempting to explain cyberspace
through practicality and logic. The approaches to this perspective are common
in fields such as economics, governance, and military applications (Lord 2008;
Kobrin 2001). This distinction between perspectives, while initially creating
some barriers to understanding, ultimately assist in realising a more complete interpretation
of cyberspace. A visualisation of cyberspace becomes clear that it is outside
of individual perspectives, and outside of a real or unreal environment.
Cyberspace demonstrates it has become an interwoven fabric through both
physical spaces and the space between our minds.
The practical elements of cyberspace are deceivingly
simple, it’s functionality abundant with opportunity for interaction with any
number of applications. The internet was initially a concept for functionality,
and like all great inventions could not have realised the true limit of its
potential. A recorded description of Licklider’s 1962 vision of a “galactic
network” was to have a globally interconnected set of computers, that people
could access data and programs from, no matter what their location (Internet
Society 2014). Cyberspace was born from this vision over half a century ago,
but is no longer confined to it (Cobb 1999). Cyberspace is functionally
utilised with limitless purposes throughout individual, business and government
spheres.
Kobrin (2001) explores the territoriality and governance of cyberspace, questioning
the necessity of cyberspace to be self-regulated. He argues that “cyberspace
should not (and will not) remain free from taxation and regulation” (p. 688). The
cyber-warfare attacks launched on Estonia in 2007, crippling the country’s
information technology infrastructure, provides another example of the
functional possibilities of cyberspace (Lord 2008). The analyses of these
applications pertain to the functionality
perspective of cyberspace. This is the idea that cyberspace by itself,
separated in its virtual distinctness, is nothing. Definition’s stemming from
this perspective, regard cyberspace as another communication medium and a
structure that needs to be controlled in order to achieve strategic objectives.
Deibert & Rohozinski (2010) provide an insightful analogy to the condition
of cyberspace, likening it to “a gangster-dominated version of New York: a
tangled web of rival public and private authorities, civic associations,
criminal networks, and underground economies” (p. 44). A single observation of
the functionality perspective and its
materially developmental priorities may give one the opinion that it is a
wasteland for thought, inherently wicked and part only to the institutions of
global economics and governance. However, all the complications of our reality,
both physical and non-physical are reflected in the world behind the computer
screen.
Behind
the screens lies a world, but no physical investigation of wires is able to
take you there. The paradox of the cyber-world is non-physical space (Adams & Warf 1997). As Pralea (2010) explains it: “[In fact,] there, there is no
there… nothing that resembles a world” (p. 61). Cyberspace is something that
exists, but only because of human-computer interaction. Heim (1991) considers
cyberspace “A metaphysical laboratory, a tool to examine our own sense of
reality” (p. 59). This type of analysis of cyberspace can be defined as the experiential perspective. Descriptions
through this perspective realise that cyberspace cannot exist in what we
consider to be reality, but exists and continues to evolve within the space
between our minds (Pralea 2010). This shared space that exists between our
minds brings together thoughts, ideas, emotions and information communicated
through text and images (Cobb 1999). Gur-Ze’ev (2000) goes to the extent of
saying that “Cyberspace is a giant pleasure machine” (p. 227). This kind of
perception is further elaborated by Coyne (1999), who notes the high degree of romanticism
present in contemporary cyberspace dialogue. People possess a growing disdain
for the limits of the body, hoping for an ultimate transcendence through
cyberspace, which may lead them to a more promising and truly democratic future
(Pralea 2010; Gur‐Ze'ev 2000; Coyne 1999). Feldman (2012) also observes the etymology of
‘space’, describing it as a social construct before a geographical territory,
underlining the necessity to recognise the social significance of cyberspace. It
is the experiential perspective that
moves cyberspace from a one-dimensional representation of technology, to a
realm of discovery that uncovers the dynamic and flexible nature of its
existence, while reflecting upon our own.
The
individual analyses of cyberspace, through the functionality perspective or experiential
perspective alone, is not sufficient for explicating the complexities of
cyberspace. Krueger (2007) alludes to the fact that cyberspace consists of both
tangible and abstract foundations. There is a physical existence present
between hardware devices and network data flows that is not separate, but interrelated
to the ‘experienced’ space where people connect both directly and indirectly
(Kruger 2007). It is the holistic approach, the symbiotic relationship between
the functionality perspective and the
experiential perspective that
promotes a higher understanding of cyberspace as both a technological and
sociocultural construction. The flexible and dynamic nature of cyberspace requires
the continuous construction and development of its parts. Adams & Warf (1997)
highlight this continuum of technology and society, articulating that “Computer
network communications are not simply passive reiterations of an existing
social reality; they are integral to the constitution of society… [a] society
[that] constantly constructs and regulates itself” (p. 142). There is no centre
of control in cyberspace. It is a collaborative construct of the masses,
reflective of our own biological design. Therefore, it is the symbiotic perspective that is necessary
to attain a more complete definition of cyberspace.
The elusive answer to defining the
entirety of cyberspace, has curiously been within reach, but never entirely
attained. The reason for this is that cyberspace resides not only in the
virtual dimension of digital technologies, nor the real world in which that
technology is exploited. Consequently, attempts at defining cyberspace must
encompass the whole. The functionality
perspective and experiential
perspective are contained within a symbiotic relationship, assisting further
understanding and the evolution of cyberspace and its representations. Instead
of reducing the definition to an egocentric perception of the impact that technology
has on our lives, or the destructive abilities that can be delivered through
warfare applications, the answer is found to be that cyberspace is an interwoven
and highly pervasive construct. It is the
space between our minds that determines that cyberspace exists, and the space
between our screens that enables it to exist. Cyberspace is outside of a real
and unreal distinction, its entire representation unavailable to be defined.
However, the symbiotic perspective
will provide clarity as the presence of cyberspace continues to permeate our
lives, and will continue to do so as we move toward the ever-changing future of
the human-computer relationship.
References
Abraham, RH 2000, ‘Cyberspace and the Ecotopian
dream’, World Futures: Journal
of General Evolution, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 153-158.
Adams, PC & Warf, B 1997, ‘Introduction:
cyberspace and geographical space’, Geographical
Review, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 139-145.
Clark, DD, Wroclawski, J, Sollins, KR &
Braden, R 2002 ‘Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's internet’, ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol.
32, No. 4, pp. 347-356.
Cobb, JJ 1999, ‘A spiritual experience of
cyberspace’, Technology in
Society, vol. 21, no. 4, pp.
393-407.
Coyne, R 1998, ‘Cyberspace and Heidegger’s
pragmatics’, Information
Technology & People, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 338-350.
Deibert, R & Rohozinski, R 2010, ‘Liberation
vs. control: The future of cyberspace’, Journal
of Democracy, vol. 21, no. 4,
pp. 43-57.
Feldman, Z 2012, ‘Simmel in cyberspace’, Information, Communication &
Society, vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 297-319.
Gibson, W 1995, Neuromancer, Ace Publishing, New York.
Gur‐Ze'ev, I 2000, ‘Critical
education in cyberspace?’, Educational
Philosophy and Theory, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 209-231.
Heim, M. (1991). The erotic ontology of
cyberspace. Cyberspace: First
steps, 59-80.
Internet Society. (2014). Brief History of the Internet, viewed 25 September 2014, <
http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet>.
Kobrin, SJ 2001, ‘Territoriality and the
Governance of Cyberspace’, Journal
of International Business Studies, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 687-704.
Krueger, T 2007, ‘Mapping Cyberspace: The Image
of the Internet’, Annals of
the History of Computing, IEEE, vol.
29, no. 1, pp. 100-100.
Lord, WT 2008, ‘USAF Cyberspace Command: To Fly and Fight in Cyberspace’, Strategic
Studies Quarterly, vol. 1, no, 3, pp. 5-18.
Pralea, C 2010, A Hermeneutical Ontology of
Cyberspace, Doctoral dissertation,
Bowling Green State University, viewed 15 Septembers 2014, via < https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1262720615/inline>
