Technology, Community, and Education in Neoliberal Society:
A Review of Michael Bugeja's Interpersonal Divide

Tara Lindros
Merrill House Operations Assistant
Office of Residential Life
Hampshire College
tlindros@hampshire.edu

Cate Zolkos
Associate Dean of Admission
Amherst College
cgzolkos@amherst.edu

Posted: August 2006     Student Affairs Online, vol. 7 no. 2 - Summer 2006

Ten years ago, when a BlackBerry was only a fruit, the proliferation of wireless communication technology was a farfetched notion limited to those with vivid imaginations (White, 2005). Today, this gadget can serve as a phone, an address book, a calendar, a camera and a wireless means of access to the Internet. The use of cell phones and e-mail offers the benefit of improved communication. The Internet too has become a very large part of daily life for most Americans. According to Haythornthwaite (2001), 94 million Americans had Internet access in 2001, and that number is sure to have multiplied greatly in the ensuing five years. The concentration of Internet use among young people, including college students, is significantly greater than the general population (Jones, 2002; Malaney, 2004). Clearly, the promulgation of new technology, such as wireless access to the Internet and better cell phones, has had effects on society and the way people interact with each another. Technology and mass media have also affected how people learn and retrieve information.

Technology is changing rapidly in ways that cannot be predicted, transforming the manner in which we live and communicate (McChesney, 2004). If the Internet remains free from regulation, neoliberal policies will take hold as private media conglomerates guide its development and use, ultimately serving corporations as opposed to the public good (McChesney, 2004). In addition, some scholars (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998; Mesch & Talmud, 2006) believe that that the Internet has huge negative consequences for communities and the quality and depth of face-to-face social interaction, and thereby communities are suffering. Others (Haythornthwaite, 2001; Katz, Rice, & Aspden, 2001; Tyler, 2002) argue that communication and community in a virtual space is an extension of real community, and another opportunity for social interaction in a public space. While there are great possibilities for the Internet in terms of communication, information, and community, there is also the danger that people will be living in virtual communities as opposed to real ones, and that people may lose essential communication skills. The Internet has potential for encouraging democracy and civic participation; however, it may also cause people to disengage from real life. There is also a growing concern that in roughly five to ten percent of users, Internet use results in addictive behavior and facilitates virtual relationships that contribute to the demise of authentic interpersonal relationships (CNN, 2006).

In addition, the Internet and mass media affect the enterprise of higher education. As Jones (2002) pointed out, college students use the Internet at a much higher rate than the rest of the population; the current generation of college students has been using the Internet from a very young age. While Jones' study of college students indicates that students feel that the Internet has enhanced their educational experiences, a number of other scholars (Flowers, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2000; Kubey, Lavin, & Barrows, 2001) have argued that time spent using the Internet or other media is either not particularly effective academically, or actually negatively affects the academic performance of students. Additionally, there are social implications of Internet use for college students, who are increasingly using the Internet for entertainment and social interaction.

Technology can benefit education by increasing access to rich and varied research materials available through online databases 24 hours a day. The use of libraries has dramatically shifted as students spend more time searching for books online rather than wandering the library stacks with the guidance of a reference librarian (Breakstone, 2005). Even teaching pedagogy has been influenced by the burgeoning use of technology in the classroom (Currie, 2005).

Michael Bugeja, a journalism professor at Iowa State University, is a prominent critic of the role of technology in society and among college student populations. In his book Interpersonal Divide, Bugeja (2005a) discussed the effects of technology and mass media on social interaction. He described the interpersonal divide as the social gap created when there is a misperceived reality due to media use and a misconception of others due to technology overuse. He argued that people are living virtual lives, which creates a distorted perception of values and the rest of the world, and are neglecting the real communities around them. Also, he asserted that technology and mass media have a pronounced effect on young people and college students specifically, affecting their intellectual and social development. Bugeja postulated that the proliferation of technology on college campuses, and the level of knowledge that contemporary students have about technology negatively impacts how they are taught and how they are socialized.

The purpose of this essay is to review Bugeja's (2005a) book, Interpersonal Divide, while considering the effects of neoliberal social and economic policy on technology and society, in the context of debates over whether or not technology encourages or retards social interaction, and how technology affects higher education. This paper will examine the purposes and primary arguments of the book and discuss the limitations as well.

Purposes and Primary Arguments
Bugeja wrote Interpersonal Divide because he wanted to demonstrate that there is a crisis in America due to people living so much of their lives in virtual interactions. These virtual relationships and communities in which people invest are often to the detriment of real communities and people. He also argued that this shift in the quality of interpersonal relationships has been occurring since the advent of radio and television, and that currently, the Internet specifically is causing the majority of the problems. Bugeja's book idealized an earlier age when families spent more quality time together, when people engaged in quality face-to-face relationships, and when corporate interests did not have access to our homes and information through mass media and technology.

Bugeja used primarily book-length studies of the effects of media and technology on contemporary society and mainstream media sources to examine how technology and mass media have affected interpersonal relationships. Through his examination of these sources, Bugeja was able to distill the following major issues affecting society with the proliferation of technology and mass media: (a) technology is causing a crisis in social interaction and communities because communication is so highly mediated, (b) education is impacted negatively by the use of technology inside and outside of the classroom by students, (c) technology allows corporations and marketing to have access to personal information and compromises privacy, (d) social displacement has been occurring primarily since the invention and proliferation of the television, (e) the Internet allows people to seek out self-help in an isolated manner, and (f) technology causes a distorted sense of morals. All of these factors have created a crisis situation that, according to Bugeja, need to be addressed in order for people to have real, authentic relationships with one another, and for communities to operate effectively. His primary arguments that the effects of technology are intertwined with neoliberalism, that social interaction and communication have been negatively affected by technology, and that technology has negative consequences for college students both academically and socially will be discussed in the following sections.

Neoliberalism
The media are instrumental in informing the public on topics that the media deem worthy of attention (Bugeja, 2005a; Kovach & Rosenstiel, 1999). What is missing from news reports is potentially as important as what is making the headlines (Gomery, 2002; McChesney, 2004; Miller, 2002). Miller (2002) agrees with Bugeja's concerns: "As citizens of a democracy, we have the right and obligation to be well aware of what is happening..." (p. 4). Less concerned with the public good and more concerned with profit, media companies and advertisers are filtering information as they turn their attention towards affluent consumers (McChesney, 2004). Of course, these actions are all part of the larger global neoliberal project which is a brutal form of capitalism based on a free-market society where governments reduce controls over corporations in order that they can make the largest profits possible for their richest investors (Giroux, 2004). McChesney (1999) has referred to neoliberalism as the

Combine the desire to earn a profit with Bugeja's (2006) hypothesis that above all, we crave acceptance, and the result is fertile ground for outrageous consumption. Boston College professor Juliet Schor calls the luxury purchase trend "competitive consumption," encouraging the newest super rich to show that they belong in the upper echelon through their status symbol purchases (Frieswick, 2006, p. 21).

The explosion of technology has disoriented journalism resulting in an emphasis on profits and, in an attempt to create interest and subsequent sales, the motivation to write stories that are sensational or full of opinion, rather than reporting the often times less glamorous facts (Kovach & Rosensteil, 1999). The government, too, is guilty of manipulating the public and the press. The social contract that focused on expanding the public good and mandated public scrutiny of the press has been "replaced with a notion of national security based on fear, surveillance, and control rather than on a culture of shared responsibility" (Giroux, 2004, p. xv). Fear is a powerful motivator and one that galvanized the country in 2003 when the government reported that there was "recent" and "fresh" evidence that Iraq was preparing to use chemical weapons potentially against the United States (Starr, 2003).

Reporter Vartan Gregorian (2005) reiterates Bugeja's hope that his readers become active consumers and question the role of technology and the motivation of media messages so as not to be manipulated by neoliberal propaganda. To be an active consumer, one must be comfortable with critical reasoning, so that choices can be made deliberately rather than repeated by habit.

Bugeja neglects to discuss the mounting protectionist ethos of the country noteworthy in the current political climate. If citizens speak out against the direction of the United States government, they are labeled unpatriotic, effectively repressing discussion and dissension (Giroux, 2004). This culture of fear has driven the defense budget into stratospheric numbers. The suggested mantra is all is well, everything is fine, and we live in the best country in the world, without question. The average citizen accepts the message without much thought, and in an attempt to create his or her haven, builds an isolated shell that attempts to perpetuate the illusion, unwilling to risk questioning the new status quo (Saunders, 2006).

Lastly, Bugeja did not acknowledge in any substantial way the possibility of democratic participation and open public space that is possible with technology like the Internet. Over the past few years, the Internet has been host to a number of sources that try to provide more accurate and balanced information about domestic and foreign affairs, in response to the reluctance of traditional, mainstream media to report anything that does not support the current administration's policies. While Bugeja did argue that the Internet allows marketers to intrude upon family life and private information, and that is certainly not untrue, the Internet is the only medium still left in this society by which ordinary citizens can start movements or disseminate important information in a relatively unregulated way.

While television, radio, and even book publishing have become almost entirely corporate (McChesney, 2004), people have the freedom to articulate their opinions on the Internet and have their views read by countless people at little or no cost. While there is a danger that this inexpensive broadcast of information may be short-lived, as corporations do more and more business and marketing over the Internet, currently is it one of the last truly public spaces left in this country. Bugeja avoided discussing the possibilities the Internet affords as public space, which Giroux (2004) argued is rapidly disappearing in neoliberal America.

Community and Social Interaction
Bugeja (2005a) lamented that children today, relative to 15 years ago, are no longer playing parks surrounded by the watchful eyes of neighbors, but instead "playing online in their rooms in front of no one in a place that is actually not there" (p. 16). The days of families strolling through parks while kicking soccer balls or running on playgrounds are disappearing. In 1856, park designer Frederick Law Olmsted saw the immersion into parks as an escape from the loud noises and busy visuals inherent in a bustling urban setting and believed the sweeping natural vistas were the best means to provide relief (Prospect Park, 2005). The introduction of laptops into his calming landscapes hardly reflects his mission to provide a natural escape; however, wireless access will be available in Central Park beginning in July, 2006, with plans to offer free Internet access across parks in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens by the end of the August, 2006 (Chan, 2006). From the constant chatter of people conversing on cell phones to the blasts and explosions heard emanating from laptops running computer games, parks risk losing their character as technology corrupts their natural setting.

Bugeja (2005a) believes that physical community is essential to a moral and ethical society. Schools, neighborhoods, homes, towns and places of work can all be considered communities, and by design, require face-to-face communication. Relationships are formed when people work together, discuss issues and receive both negative and positive feedback, allowing for the nuances in human interaction to help guide communication. Bugeja (2005a) states that "only community can bestow character" and peace comes from helping others in a community, which in turn helps to form character (p. 45). Warner (2003) illustrated that online communication, such as AOL Instant Messenger, has become a contemporary substitute for the telephone, particularly for today's youth. Bugeja's (2005a) concern is that virtual groups lack social structure and, because of their constant change, cannot be considered communities.

Bugeja (2005a) argued that human nature dictates that human beings are meant to interact with one another in a face-to-face way, and that reliance on electronic devices, such as computers and cell phones, to communicate with others causes emotional disconnect (p. 41). As people become more and more dependent on these devices to communicate with others, there will be a resulting void in morals and emotional wellbeing. People lose their ability to connect with what is going on in the real space around them when they are connected to an electronic device so that they are communicating in a virtual world and apart from their communities (Bugeja, 2005a).

The use of technology for personal consumption is proliferating. The popularity of cell phones deeply concerns Bugeja because their use alters how people relate with one another (White, 2005). According to CNN reporter Jason White (2005), almost three-quarters of America's 108 million households own a cell phone. While having a phone available anytime, anywhere is a convenience and even arguably a safety measure, it has resulted in a lack of etiquette as reported by the research company Synovate, whose recent poll revealed that 70 percent of respondents witnessed rude cell phone use at least once per day (Cox, 2005). As people become engrossed in their wireless world, they lose a sense of physical place and develop a split consciousness causing them to shout into their phone in public places, or cross streets with little sense of the traffic buzzing around them, while they intently engage in conversation with someone who is not physically present (Bugeja, 2005a). There is evidence that drivers engaged in cell phone conversations show greater impairment than intoxicated drivers (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2003; Bugeja, 2005a). Evidence that the cell phone use while driving is viewed as a danger can be found in a Cellular-News (2006) report finding that talking on phones while driving is outlawed in 50 countries and 18 US states with another five states debating the measure.

Other scholars concurred with Bugeja's argument that virtual communication using the Internet is having negative effects on community life and real social interaction. Kraut et al. (1998) conducted a quantitative study of Internet use and its effects on people. By measuring higher levels of loneliness and depression , they concluded that Internet use causes a decrease in social engagement and an increase in poor mental health, potentially dangerous consequences for community life and personal happiness.

However, Haythornthwaite (2001) took a more balanced approach when she cautioned people not to set up real and virtual communication as a dichotomy, but rather to see them as more integrative parts of how a person communicates and lives. Another group of scholars advocates for the use of technology alongside face-to-face communication in order to strengthen relationships and communities ties. Matei & Ball-Rokeach (2001) conducted a study of seven ethnic neighborhoods in Los Angeles, attempting to determine how connections to real community affect the ability of people to create online social networks. Their findings indicated that those with a strong community orientation in real life were similarly able to create meaningful virtual communities and relationships.

Internet users also tend to be more social both online and offline, according to Katz et al. (2001). Their results indicated that time spent on the Internet did not correlate with a lack of involvement in community life. The results also indicated that these online relationships actually strengthened community ties and created more relationships. The scholars that found positive outcomes for those who use the Internet for communication purposes generally agree that, in conjunction with real relationships and communities, virtual communities can be yet another way to engage in a variety of community issues, from simple friendships to civic and political engagement. The Internet facilitates better and more communication for those who are already skilled at interacting with others, and that there is no real evidence that time spent online has a negative effect on personal wellbeing (Tyler, 2002). While the research supported Bugeja's claim that excessive Internet use can be detrimental to face-to-face social interaction, these scholars argued that online interactions could also have positive effects on interpersonal relationships.

Computers as a means of communication have been oversold, according to Bugeja (2005a), who states, "The more we communicate electronically, the more we misinterpret, deepening levels of displacement and amplifying our desire for acceptance" (p. 32). Bugeja (2006) contends improved technology has not made work more efficient, but has blurred the lines between work and home, causing us to lose perspective and confuse priorities. Geoffrey Bowker (2004) at Santa Clara University shares Bugeja's belief that it is much more difficult to maintain barriers between work and play in the wireless world, but stresses that paradoxes are common with new technologies. While we have the ability to greatly enrich our lives with easily accessible knowledge, much of this information is inaccurate or unreliable, and some can be deliberately deceptive (Bugeja, 2005a). He warns that less sophisticated Internet users are not able to distinguish between fact and fiction. As we increase our time spent online, our personal and spiritual development suffers as the time to contemplate and reflect erodes (Bowker, 2004).

Higher Education and Technology
As Jones (2002) illustrated in his 2002 study of college students and Internet use, college students demonstrate many of the issues surrounding the use of technology and mass media, because current students are the first generation of Americans who have used computers and the Internet for most of their lives. While there are more clear-cut issues with respect to higher education and technology, such as distance education via the Internet, which Bugeja (2005a) discussed (p. 134), there are other issues of concern such as the academic effects of technology and the impact of the Internet on campus social life. Jones concluded that college students self-reported that the Internet had a positive impact on their educational experience; they used it as a tool to access information and to stay in contact with classmates and professors. Additionally, the Internet played a very large role in these students' social lives, connecting them to social networks on campus, as well as allowing them to maintain relationships with friends and family back home.

Technology also impacts the quality of the classroom experience. Charles Currie (2006), president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, believes that even the greatest teachers can benefit from the use of technology and suggests that faculty should decide what they want to teach and then determine how technology could assist them. A quote etched on a wall in the John Carroll University science center reads, "Technology has given you a power of inquiry greater than thinking individuals have ever possessed. Not to use it would be like not breathing" (Currie, 2006). However, technology should not be viewed as a panacea to repair the education system, but rather a tool that can benefit education when used judiciously (Gumport & Chen, 2005; Currie, 2005). Unfortunately, untenured faculty are often busy meeting the demands required to gain promotion, so that they often do not have time to adequately learn new technology, resulting in PowerPoint slide presentations reading like lecture notes, ensuring an uninspiring delivery (Young, 2004). When faculty members lack the time or interest in becoming technologically savvy, they miss potential innovative opportunities that could assist them in their research or teaching. The result is the universities that may have invested significantly in these technological innovations do not always reap the benefits (Carnevale, 2004).

While technology is promising, some question whether or not it has positive effects on learning. Flowers, Pascarella, & Pierson (2000) argued, based on a quantitative study of college students and their computer and e-mail use, that technology use does not indicate intellectual growth over the first year of college. In fact, they determined that there was a negative correlation between e-mail use and intellectual growth, particularly among two-year college students, because e-mail may have taken time away from other, more productive educational activities. Kubey, Lavin, & Barrows (2001) also reported that Internet use impaired academic performance, and increased the likelihood of loneliness, lack of sleep, and missing class. Students participating in the study said that they felt they would have more meaningful social relationships and academic experiences if they reduced their Internet use. Bugeja (2005a) argued that the use of technology has created the most anxious college students in history, and that anxiety ironically has caused students to seek solace in the Internet (p. 149-150).

In addition, a majority of professors reported that the Internet had a detrimental effect on the academic achievement of their students (Young, 2005). Specifically, they raised concerns about plagiarism over the Internet and the homogenization of writing due to computer programs that correct grammar. They did, however, indicate that the Internet had positive results as a classroom tool, as mentioned previously. While the Internet has potential to become a powerful tool in academia and beyond, it can also cause academic disengagement, resulting in potentially negative outcomes for a small number of students (Malaney, 2004; McMillan & Morrison, 2006).

Another survey found that one-third of 116 students with GPAs below 2.0 attributed recreational computer use as the primary reason for their lackluster academic performance, suggesting a direct correlation between low grades and misuse of the computer (Farrell, 2005a). Bugeja believes that if the students at academic risk were able to analyze their computer use, they would make progress towards modifying their behavior, reprioritizing, and spending more time focused on academic work. According to Bauerlein (2006), today's college students are not as engaged in society and know less about the world around them compared to their predecessors. Today's student consume more media than students from any other generation. Professors complained that their students were spending excessive amounts of time watching television and other media (Kamalipour, Robinson, & Nortman, 1998) and not engaging with academic material in meaningful ways by reading books and conducting research in a library setting. The use of libraries has dramatically shifted as students spend more time searching for books online rather than wandering the library stacks with the guidance of a reference librarian (Breakstone, 2005). In these ways, the Internet has educational potential (Cole, 2004), but also causes a disconnect between students and their academic lives.

In tandem with academic effects, the Internet has impacted the social lives of college students. Increasingly, social life is intertwined with virtual community and relationships; college students are forging connections with other students online. Communities such as Facebook have become hugely popular on college campuses. Bugeja (2005a) argued that college students are using the Internet for socializing and for entertainment, often viewing questionable content, such as pornography, in unrestricted ways. While there are similar social concerns at college and universities as there are in society at large, Bugeja was primarily concerned with the ways in which marketing and consumerism is inherent in entertainment and social experiences on the Internet.

In a 2006 article, Bugeja asserted that technology not only interrupts classroom time, when students use laptops or cell phones in the classroom, but also causes students to use websites such as Facebook in an unintelligent way. Bugeja described it as a lack of "interpersonal intelligence." These students, he argued, demonstrate a lack of judgment regarding what information it is wise and safe to share online, and also are commodified by the websites themselves, which turn them into profiles instead of people. Students may share intimate details of their lives, which can then be viewed by potential employers and marketers, among others. Sharing Bugeja's concerns, Read (2006) illustrated how college campuses have used Facebook or Myspace to gather information about their students. Students often forget that the information they post on the Internet is not private, and it can be viewed by campus officials and by others outside the college community. As a response, administrators on some campuses are attempting to educate incoming students about how to effectively maintain their privacy on the Internet.

Overall, the Internet is an integral part of college students' lives, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. While some colleges are attempting to adapt to the changing technology by providing online services to students, such as counseling services (Farrell, 2005b), Bugeja stressed the importance of teaching moderation and discretion for college students when online, in order to maintain their privacy and psychological wellbeing.

Bugeja (2005a) cites an emerging emphasis on achieving success at all costs; a must-be-successful philosophy that jeopardizes the integrity of the educational system. The rise in cheating is attributed to an increased determination to be successful combined with an arsenal of easily accessible online and communication tools (Glater, 2006). Bugeja (2006) cites additional concerns when he bemoans that technology was supposed to enhance the educational experiences of students in the classroom, but instead, but students are surfing the Internet on their laptops during lectures, making cell phone calls, or playing with their iPods. While new technology cannot be blamed totally for the increased lack of civility, Bugeja correlates the increase in technology abuse to the demise in interpersonal communication, hypothesizing that when individuals abuse technology, they feel alienated and out of touch with reality; as a result, they lose their sense of propriety. Bugeja (2006) predicts that these issues of plagiarism and disconnection will continue to be a problem in higher education.

Our institutions of higher learning cannot abdicate their role in a democratic society, but must aggressively retain the responsibility to educate broadly and deeply (Gregorian, 2005). Because a successful democracy relies on informed citizens, and citizens become informed through education, the role of education as an agent to promote democracy is central (McChesney, 2004). Without an educated populace, democracy is at risk. The responsibility of colleges and universities to work to enhance education and foster the immeasurable positive aspects of technology while minimizing technology abuse is paramount to ensuring a thriving nation (Gregorian, 2005).

Limitations
There are several limitations to Bugeja's book. Among them is his heavy reliance on a single perspective. Throughout the book, he cited such well-known conservatives as Dinesh D'Souza, Christina Hoff Summers, and Peggy Noonan. While these authors provide a strong view on the issue of the role of technology in modern society, they represent only one side of political and social opinion (the Right). Citing controversial authors such as those mentioned above without balancing their viewpoints with other opinions can cause the reader to disengage with the material because they do not trust conservative pundits.

Additionally, Bugeja failed to cite any of the contemporary qualitative and quantitative research done on the effects of the Internet and other technology, with the exception of the Jones's (2002) study of college students. There were a great number of studies conducted that provide concrete, well-researched evidence of how the Internet impacts those who use it on a regular basis. Instead, Bugeja relied on books written by people who theorize and observe society and technology, but who are not actually academic researchers. As is clear from the amount of research available for this paper and the dates the studies were published, a large number of studies were available to Bugeja to back up his arguments, but he chose not to consult or use them, perhaps because a number of them disproved his assertions. Using the contemporary, methodologically sound research that is readily available would have strengthened this book greatly.

Also, while many of Bugeja's points were certainly thought provoking and sometimes wholly accurate, his idealization of the 1950s as a time when communities were stronger and a better time for families in America was extremely problematic and is a classic argument of conservatives. While it may be true that families spent more time together because technology, such as televisions, had not yet entered the mainstream, there were a number of things that were not positive about the 1950s for many groups of people. Even if communities were stronger, the feminist and Civil Rights movements had not yet begun, and women and people of color in the United States experienced discrimination and oppression. Bugeja's romantic way of envisioning the world is neither an effective nor productive lens through which to focus his readers. While fewer children gallop around public parks in urban areas, many parks are not as safe today as when they were when Michael Bugeja was a child.

Bugeja yields to the temptation to create a causal relationship between the declining use of parks and the increased popularity of computer games - a view that is too simplistic. His tone takes on that of a preacher when he broadly proclaims that morality, peace and character emanate out of physical community. By neglecting to soften his unmovable stance, Bugeja allows a critical reader to think of those physical communities that do not foster morality or peace but condone racism and sexism, thus weakening his arguments. Bugeja further reveals a sense of impatience and intolerance when he suggests that those who read his book and interpret it as hyperbole may be addicted to technology themselves (Bugeja, 2005b), failing to recognize the very real reasons why we should not want to return to that time.

While Bugeja complains about the demise of face-to-face conversations due to e-mail, he neglects to consider that questions can be asked at any time via e-mail, enabling a student to place a query as it is raised. In addition, e-mail can facilitate a dramatic increase in student faculty interactions; students who tend to remain quiet in class often felt more comfortable in e-mail conversations perhaps due to shyness or simply the need to think deliberately about what they communicate before they share their thoughts (Gumport & Chen, 2005; Tomlinson-Keasey, 2002). While the grammar used in e-mail may, at times, be flawed, at least students are learning to express their ideas in the written word, and, if confusion arises, the students learn to become more exact in their choice of language.

Bugeja underemphasizes the reality that education depends on technology as a critical tool in research endeavors and as a vehicle to disseminate new ideas. The Chronicle of Higher Education Online offers weekly discussion forums so that experts from all over the world can share their concerns and successes pertaining to specific topics, providing a innovative resource to anyone with an Internet connection. In an environment where technology is so important, Bugeja neglects to suggest solutions by not addressing what might be done to help students find a balance in their use of technology and avoid addictive behavior.

Conclusion
Overall, Interpersonal Divide, while interesting, did not adequately utilize current research on the effects of technology on society, and failed to provide a convincing, balanced, and compelling account of technology and mass media and how they are destroying community and social interactions in the United States. Bugeja's failure to cite scholarly sources that may have supported his arguments weakened his claims and caused the book to seem like a polemic written by an author who is out of touch with how communication has changed with the advent of computers and other technology.

While some of the studies discussed earlier in this paper did in fact come to similar conclusions as Bugeja (that the Internet does have detrimental effects on psychological wellbeing and meaningful socialization), other studies found that the Internet supplements already-existing community ties and even expands social networks as well as facilitates communication in a positive way. These studies were intriguing because they posited that the Internet allowed those who were already effective communicators to communicate even more and create virtual communities that were, at times, analogous to their real communities. This is in direct opposition to Bugeja's claim that mediated communication, like what occurs through the Internet, creates individuals alienated from real life and relationships. These studies also did not document any increase in depression or loneliness among Internet users.

While it is clear, even from the research that viewed technology in a more positive light, that the Internet can and sometimes does have negative effects on the amount of time spent on face-to-face communication with family, friends, and others, it is also possible that the Internet is simply another new form of communication, like the telegraph or telephone, that is changing the way people interact. That does not necessarily mean that the effects of the technology are negative, like Bugeja asserted, but rather just different. As technology changes, and has changed over time, the way people relate to one another changes and shifts.

In addition, the enterprise of higher education is changing as a result of a new generation of college students who have used technology from a very early age, and use the Internet at a much higher rate than other age groups. This is affecting how colleges and universities educate students. According to scholars, Internet use can negatively affect the academic pursuits of a college student, and some professors have reported that the Internet is causing disengagement with intellectual pursuits. The Internet threatens to supplant traditional forms of learning partially because the Internet is being used as an educational tool inside and outside of the classroom. Some educators are skeptical about the use of the Internet for research purposes and the effects that may have on the quality of information used by students. Bugeja pointed out that college students rarely use the library anymore, and are losing out on the tactile experience of browsing through shelves of books.

Also, college students are using the Internet for entertainment and socializing more than ever, and are rarely aware of the consequences of broadcasting their personal information on the Internet, where it can often be viewed by anyone. Websites such as Facebook can be accessed by university officials, as well as by parents and potential employers. Further research could aid colleges and universities in considering the social effects of these websites, and decide how to effectively deal with them on their own campuses.

Interpersonal Divide is an intriguing and difficult work because it highlights the worst-case scenario of how technology could impact society. Used excessively and without thought, technology does have the potential to irreparably damage communities. Gathering and interpreting expression feedback is so basic to our interpersonal communication that two-week-old infants can begin to recognize facial expressions (Science Daily, 2002). Misunderstandings that could have been easily avoided can erupt in an e-mail which lacks the subtle nuance of eye contact, expression or tone of voice (Bugeja, 2005a). Gregorian (2005) agrees that technology is a way to do things, not the thing in and of itself. If we are not deliberate in deciding when, where, and what technology to use, we will continue to make detrimental choices that ultimately harm our families and communities. If, as Bugeja warns, we become a society where people simply sit in front of computer screens and never see what is around them, we are in danger of losing all concept of reality and disconnecting from important relationships with family and friends.

While this is clearly an exaggerated view of what is going on in America today, people should be concerned about placing meaningful limits, especially for children, on the amount of time spent with video games, computers, cell phones, and televisions. While adults today may be able to keep connections in real life while forging others online, the next generation that has always had Internet access may not have the same real-life social skills. Bugeja's evaluation of what is currently happening in society may in fact be a harbinger of what could happen in the future if we are not cautious and if we do not moderate our technology use. In this way, Interpersonal Divide may be useful in that it provides warnings about where we may be heading, and how we need to stay vigilant if we hope to have both meaningful real and virtual communities.

References

Bauerlein, M. (2006, January 6).  A very long disengagement. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B6. 

 

Bowker, G. (2004). Center for science, technology and society. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from http://cms.scu.edu/sts/about/leadership.cfm

 

Breakstone, E. (2005, September 30). Librarians can look forward to an exhilarating future. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B20.

 

Bugeja, M. (2005a). Interpersonal divide: The search for community in a technological age. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

 

Bugeja, M. (2005b, August 5). Master (or mistress) of your domain. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/08/2005080501c.htm

 

Bugeja, M. J. (2006, January 27). Facing the facebook. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

p. C1.

 

Carnevale, D. (2004, July 2). Report says technology has failed to deliver on its promises. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A30.

 

Cellular-News. (2006). Countries that ban cell phones while driving. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.cellular-news.com/car bans/

 

 

Chan, S. (2006, May 16). Deadline set for wireless internet in parks. Retrieved May 16, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/nyregion/16wifi.html?_r=2&th=&oref= slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

 

Chomsky, N.  (1999).  Profit over people:  Neoliberalism and Global Order.  New York:  Seven Stories Press.

 

CNN. (2006). Growing concern over Internet addiction. Retrieved May 19, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/19/internet.addiction.reut/index.html.

 

Cole, J. (2004, April 2). Now is the time to start studying the Internet age. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, p. B18. 

 

Cox, A. (2005, October 18). Where are your wireless manners? As public unplugs, rudeness seems to be getting worse. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/17/wireless.manners/index.html

 

Currie, C. L. (2005, December 9). The future of liberal arts. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B10.

 

Farrell, E. F. (2005a, September 2). Logging on, tuning out: When students lose themselves in          online worlds, it can be hard to bring them back to reality. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A46.

 

Farrell, E. F. (2005b, December 16). Need therapy?  Check your in box.  The Chronicle of

Higher Education, p. A38. 

 

Flowers, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2000). Information technology use and

cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 637-667. 

 

Frieswick, K. (2006, May 14). Make way for the millionaires. Retrieved May 14, 2006, from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/05/14/make_way_for_millionaires

 

Giroux, H. A. (2004). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of

democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

 

Glater, J. D. (2006). Colleges chase as cheats shift to higher tech. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from ttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/education/18cheating.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

 

Gomery, D. (2002). The FCC's newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule: An analysis. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/books_cross-ownership.

 

Gregorian, V. (2005, December 9). The pursuit of knowledge: Grounding technology in both science and significance. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B3.

 

Gumport, P., & Chen, M. (2005). Technology and higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (2nd ed., pp. 393-425). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Introduction: The internet in everyday life. American Behavioral

Scientist, 45(3), 363-382. 

 

Jones, S. (2002).  The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with

            today’s technology. Washington, DC:  Pew Internet & American Life Project. 

 

Kamalipour, Y. R., Robinson, W. T., & Nortman, M. L. (1998).  College students’ media

habits: A pilot study. Hammond, IN; Purdue University Calumet. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415564). 

 

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001).  The internet, 1995-2000: Access, civic

involvement, and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 405-419.

 

Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (1999). Warp speed: America in the age of mixed media. New York: The Century Foundation Press.

 

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). 

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and

psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

 

Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate academic

performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 366-382.

 

Malaney, G. (2004). Student use of the Internet.  Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(1), 53-66.

 

Matei, S., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2001). Real and virtue social ties: Connections in the

everyday lives of seven ethnic neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 550-564. 

 

McChesney, R. W. (2004).  The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the

twenty-first century. New York: Monthly Review Press. 

 

McMillan, S. J., & Morisson, M. (2006).  Coming of age with the Internet: A qualitative

exploration of how the Internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. 

New Media & Society, 8(1), 73-95.

 

Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006).  The quality of online and offline relationships: The role of

multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society, 22, 137-148.

 

Miller, M. C. (2002, January 7, 2002). What's wrong with this picture? The Nation, p. 4.

 

Prospect Park. (2005). History & nature: Park architects. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.prospectpark.org/hist/main.cfm?target=architects.

 

Read, B. (2006, January 20). Think before you share.  The Chronicle of Higher Education, p.

A38. 

 

Saunders, D. (2006, February 2006). Take back higher education: A book review and discussion of neoliberalism and critical pedagogy.  Journal of College & Character, 7(2).  Retrieved May 22, 2006 from http://www.collegevalues.org/reading.cfm

 

Science Daily. (2002). Study suggests infants "tune in" to familiar face groups. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020517080606.htm.

 

Starr, B. (2003). U.S.: Iraq may use chemical warfare. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.chemical.weapons.

 

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2003). Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.

 

Tomlinson-Keasey, C. (2002). Becoming digital: The challenge of weaving technology throughout higher education. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 133-158). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

 

Tyler, T. R. (2002). Is the Internet changing social life? It seems the more things change, the

more they stay the same. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 195-205. 

 

Warner, S. (2003, May 25). The message?  Your children sure get it: For teenagers and

younger socialites, instant messaging is almost addictive. New York Times, pp. NJ1-NJ2. 

 

White, J. (2005, October 18). Wireless technology changing work and play. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/17/wireless.overview/index.html.

 

Young, J. R. (2004, November 12). When Good Technology Means Bad Teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A31.

 

Young, J. R. (2005, August 12). Professors give mixed reviews of Internet’s educational

impact. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A32.