Is Being "Plugged In" Changing Campus Life?
A Conversation

In Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, Putnam (1995) argues that civic involvement among Americans has been decreasing over the past three decades. Putnam interprets declining membership in labor unions, parent-teacher associations, fraternal organizations, and other civic groups (including bowling leagues) as evidence of American society’s diminished “social capital”- the interpersonal networks, trust, and norms that “facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (p. 67). Putnam attributes this trend, in part, to the “deep seated technological trends that are radically ‘privatizing’ or ‘individualizing’ “people’s use of leisure time, therefore negating opportunities for association (p. 75). Television; home-based, portable, and personal devices for viewing movies, playing video games, and listening to music; personal and laptop computers; the Internet; and the Worldwide Web are all elements of the trend to which Putnam refers.

This article considers the extent to which “plugged-in-ness” characterizes contemporary college life, and considers whether social capital is diminishing within our student communities as a result of technology-induced isolation. In recent years, colleagues have expressed concerns about the increasing amount of time students spend “plugged in” rather than engaged in communal activities. Residence life staff perceived that getting students out of their rooms had become more challenging. Folks wondered whether decreased attendance at educational programs and social events, and diminished civility in residence hall communities, were attributable to students spending too much time “plugged-in.”

We began to contemplate the potential implications of “plugged-in-ness” with regard to the formation of social capital among our students. The following point/counterpoint- style conversation incorporates many of the ideas we have been considering.

MEG: It seems to me that “plugged-in” is indeed an apt descriptor of our students. Survey data from UMass show that over 80% have TVs in their rooms, over half have cell phones, over 90% own computers, and over 70% access the Internet daily. Now, I’m not a Luddite - there is nothing inherently wrong with cell phones, computers, headphones, personal stereos, computer games and the like. But, I have some real problems with the roles they are taking in our society - both civic and campus.

Let me try to illustrate. On campus the other day, I watched two students walking together. Faces turned in opposite directions, each talking on a cell phone, they were physically together but were not interacting. In many ways, this image provides a telling analogy for the negative side of plugged-in-ness…together yet elsewhere. There are other examples… Think about students in their rooms, watching TV or in front of the computer screen, head sets on, or on the phone. Now consider the social message implied by the headset or the phone… how even if you are physically with the student, s/he doesn’t have your whole attention. All of these scenarios suggest a society in which it is more important to be in constant communication than it is to connect with others on a multidimensional, truly human level. We see an illusion of togetherness, not a reality of substantial interaction.

ETHAN: I agree that today’s students spend a lot of time “plugged-in,” but I don’t think that “plugged-in-ness “ necessarily breeds isolation. Although critics allege that students are less engaged in their campus communities today than in the past, the connections enabled by the World Wide Web, email, chat rooms, and instant messaging allow students to interact with a new, larger community. In the past, the close-knit associations formed through participation in extracurricular activities and institution-sponsored events tended to cocoon students on campus, isolating them from the world. Now, technologies enable students to engage to a greater extent with the world beyond campus.

Also, whereas data documenting the pervasiveness of plugged-in behaviors provide insight, it is important to research whether and how the type and quality of relationships conducted primarily over the phone or Internet are qualitatively different from those conducted “in-the-flesh.” I don’t buy the notion that students who are talking to friends on the phone or over Instant Messenger are more “alone” than not.

MEG: That depends on how we define both “friends” and “alone.” What kind of personal relationships is plugged-in-ness encouraging? Those that are one -dimensional, and perhaps not very honest. Relationships mediated by technology don’t allow us to engage with a whole person &endash; only what they write or what they say. About one-third of UMass students surveyed reported having lied about themselves to someone on line. It seems to me that the “role-playing” that is so common and so accepted on-line encourages a habit of developing inauthentic relationships &endash; relationships based on false perceptions.

ETHAN: The fact that a third of our students have lied to someone on-line is relatively meaningless without knowing how many of them have lied about themselves to someone they met in person. Shallow people are likely to have shallow relationships whether they are developed on-line or in person.

MEG: The one-dimensional relationship is showing up on other places too. As Putnam points out, the nature of organizational membership seems to be changing. Nationally, membership is up in organizations where you send in a check and get a magazine. What’s down is organizations where you attend a regular meeting, do tasks or projects or activities with others, get to know those others as multidimensional people, rather than their one-dimensional, on-paper representatives. On campus, membership in student organizations has dropped from 32 to 18 % in the last two decades.

It is through everyday, face-to-face interaction that people learn how to navigate the social world. College should be providing practice in these skills that can then be applied to larger projects beyond the campus. Instead, we’re seeing a destructive kind of individualism which offers no training in sharing.

ETHAN: Internet activity in the wake of September 11^th illustrates how a strong, new technological culture can manifest itself positively. Many colleges created web pages where students and alumni/ae could check-in with classmates and post messages expressing their hopes, fears and prayers. Students across the country downloaded and shared not only images of the tragedy but human responses from around the world.

MEG: Downloading images is fine - in itself. But if that’s all that happens then people have the illusion of involvement without being real actors in the world. It seems to me that students might be so technologically connected to the world that they don’t feel the need to go out into it. They can talk to friends on the phone or by instant messenger; play games, read, gamble, shop or do research on the web; download music or a movie. Even low-level practice at personal interaction &endash; negotiating the TV channel in the dorm lounge &endash; are unneeded and unpracticed. It is no wonder colleges have to offer students courses in leadership!

Also, it seems to me that “plugged-in-ness” may be generating apathy. We are less likely to care about others when we know them only on one level. Social capital, that powerful net of cooperative relationships, is being replaced by thinner, one directional strands which fail to hold a community together.

ETHAN: But it seems to me that new types of civic engagement are made possible through the use of technology - from the ability of groups to disseminate national petitions over short periods of time to organizing activists for rallies. Also, email makes it easier now than in the past for students to stay connected to family members and friends from high school.

It’s easy for college personnel to view technology as problematic if they interpret some students’ isolation as technologically-induced. It doesn’t have to be that way. Residence hall staff could harness “plugged-in-ness” to their own ends by using email and the Web to promote their programs. For example, listservs could inform students of programs on particular topics of interest.

Although some lament diminished student engagement on campus and believe that plugged-in-ness portends a future in which students will be incapable of relating to each other without an electronic intermediary, such a view overlooks new forms of engagement. Students do spend time forming and maintaining relationships via technology; they also spend time preserving connections that predate college. However, students still interact extensively face-to-face. Anyone who works on campus knows that our students still date, still play intramural sports, still party together….

MEG: I’m not suggesting that we should dispose of electronics or refuse to take advantage of the many possibilities they offer. Rather, I’m suggesting that we need to be extremely intentional and thoughtful in how we incorporate them into our lives, how we model their use, and how we build them into our institutions.