Introduction
The consideration of the problems of social structure is possible in various aspects: healthcare, education, and other institutions. Changes in one or several areas invariably entail not only cultural changes but also social transformations, which are manifested in shifts in values, new channels of communication, and updated ways of interpersonal interaction. The process of digitization is no exception since the cultural characteristics of the development of various social groups depend not only on existing trends in interaction but also on communication routes. A number of opportunities emerge due to digital innovations that simplify any form of contact and bring both sides of the communication process closer. At the same time, these activities are accompanied by the degradation of traditional verbal interaction and the transformation of classical practices of interpersonal links. Based on the digitization trend, the influence of technological progress will be considered in the context of impacts on the human understanding of sociality and its manifestations.
Significant Changes in Understanding Sociality
Any technology arising in society, on the one hand, satisfies a specific social need, and on the other hand, changes the nature of people’s interaction. According to Ometov et al. (2016), all modern and innovative devices designed to support remote communication among people simplify the establishment of social contacts among individuals, groups, and organizations. Through various channels, people receive information about events and can interact without feeling the need to be at close range. This nature of human relationships that have developed over the past few decades has changed the traditional concept of sociality and reorganized the principles of human interaction.
Despite the fact that not all communication channels provide feedback with the interlocutor and act as a means of mass communication, the ability to influence one or a group of people remotely is common today. This opportunity is perceived as a norm and a natural phenomenon. According to Pantano and Gandini (2017), in the understanding of most people, a chance to be in touch with friends or relatives is not perceived as a destructive mechanism and is assessed as an ordinary process. In other words, for a modern person, spending time in social networks is not a process that contradicts the norms of interpersonal interaction and is considered a distorted form of communication. As a result, under the influence of progress, the digitization trend does not create significant inconvenience and, conversely, stimulates the maintenance of contacts in conditions in which traditional communication is impossible.
The concept of sociality has transformed significantly, and many phenomena that were previously impossible in the communication system due to people’s remoteness are natural in a modern social environment. For instance, Ometov et al. (2016) cite an example of collaborative online movements and note that this trend has become widespread under the influence of social media as a key tool for human interaction. Humanity has learned to use the achievements of technological progress in full to maintain communication at a distance, and this phenomenon has a number of valuable implications. The simplification of digital interaction, which Coates (2017) mentions in the context of the exchange of text and video files, is a logical consequence. Due to the continued development of this industry, people have obtained an opportunity to remain close and, at the same time, express personal ideas freely since virtual space is characterized by less formal interaction principles. Therefore, accessibility and convenience are the important elements of modern communication in the digital environment, and such a change in the concept of sociality is a natural and positive outcome.
Negative Aspects of Digitisation in the Social Sphere
Despite the availability of digital communication, the very concept of sociality has gradually transformed under the influence of modern interaction channels, and some negative implications are the result of these changes. For instance, according to Chambers (2017), a sense of personal responsibility, or individual awareness, has been distorted due to the freedom that the digital environment provides. The almost complete lack of control over the expression of opinions in the virtual space leads to such negative consequences as bullying, online fraud, and other dangerous phenomena. In addition, as Chambers (2017) notes, some universal values have lost their original meaning and ceased to exist. Since socialization is a process of personality formation, the right to accept or deny individual trends and movements is an integral choice that a person accepts for oneself. However, digitization has changed many attitudes, in particular, the intimacy of personal life and the impartiality of opinions. In particular, as Coates (2017) argues, political decisions are often influenced by opinions from the virtual space, which, nevertheless, are not always associated with justice and objectivity. Therefore, the complete freedom of communication in the digital age carries some ambiguous implications.
Weak Impacts of Digitisation on Sociality
While taking into account the updated mode of communication in the context of digitization, one can note that, despite the emergence of new tools for interaction, the very concept of sociality has not changed significantly. A person, as before, needs interaction, and modern instruments are mechanisms that simplify but do not transform the nature of communication. Monti and Aglioti (2018) state that interaction evokes social emotions, and in any environment, whether virtual or real communication, interlocutors have a common goal – to satisfy the need for information exchange. Chambers (2017) partially confirms this assumption with the example of Facebook, the global social media. The author notes that incentives for communication within this network are strengthened due to the current trend, but the general motives remain the same (Chambers, 2017). Thus, digital technologies affect the nature of sociality, but human needs are not affected crucially.
A similar position can also be presented on the basis of communication needs that people seek to satisfy. Pantano and Gandini (2017) remark that the trust that an individual has in relation to one’s interlocutor in digital interaction is not different from that in a personal conversation. In other words, social contacts with a stranger are perceived equally in social media and in real life. When communicating with friends and relatives, people are more liberated, which is also logical and natural. Therefore, regardless of the purpose of communication, a person demonstrates similar behavioural patterns both in a digital and real environment, which indicates a weak effect of modern technologies on sociality.
Conclusion
The human understanding of sociality, which is viewed from the standpoint of the influence of modern digital technologies, can be evaluated from two perspectives. The emergence of virtual platforms for interaction has expanded the possibilities for the exchange of information and simplified social contacts. In addition, some negative aspects of such communication manifest themselves today, which indicates the impact of innovation on interpersonal relationships. However, in the general context, a person’s need for interaction has not changed, and the main motives of communication have not been transformed substantially. From this perspective, technology does not have a crucial impact on the concept of sociality and does not change the general principles of social contacts.
Reference List
Chambers, D. (2017) ‘Networked intimacy: algorithmic friendship and scalable sociality’, European Journal of Communication, 32(1), pp. 26-36.
Coates, J. (2017) ‘So ‘hot’ right now reflections on virality and sociality from transnational digital China’, Digital Culture & Society, 3(2), pp. 77-98.
Monti, A. and Aglioti, S. M. (2018) ‘Flesh and bone digital sociality: on how humans may go virtual’, British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), pp. 418-420.
Ometov, A. et al. (2016) ‘Toward trusted, social-aware D2D connectivity: bridging across the technology and sociality realms’, IEEE Wireless Communications, 23(4), pp. 103-111.
Pantano, E. and Gandini, A. (2017) ‘Exploring the forms of sociality mediated by innovative technologies in retail settings’, Computers in Human Behavior, 77, pp. 367-373.