Sorry, Blog

Dearest Blog,

Sorry that tonight I don't feel like visiting you. No, it's not about you, but it's about me. I'm trying to finish my draft (well, although of course a draft means an unfinished product) for the first chapter of what would be my thesis. Do you want to know what I'm talking about in this chapter? I'm talking about my "Freecycle triangle" -you know, a kind of triangle that I make to explain what happens inside Laramie Freecycle. In explaining about this Freecycle triangle, I focus on the local-global, physical-virtual relationships between Laramie Freecycle (a local group) and The Freecycle Network (the "umbrella" group). Yes blog, I use the term physical-virtual instead of real-virtual because if we say real world, then it would probably imply that the virtual world is, unreal. So, I don't like that term "real."



In writing that, I'm thinking a lot about the meaning of relationships, interactions, and community participation. How do that local-global, physical-virtual connections define how members define relationships, interactions, and community participation? I found that members do very individual-based actions with individual-based reasons. They don't really concern about meeting with other members, getting to know them personally, and develop trust to them and to the community members in general. So does it mean that "relationships" are not important in this group? Does it mean that there is no such thing as "interconnectedness" in the group? And finally, can it be that this absence of interconnectedness will contribute nothing to the (change in) everyday practice of citizenship and democracy?

Well, blog, I think I find that instead of having no relationships and interconnectedness at all, this group and members teach me a different way to view the meanings of relationships. My professor, Frieda Knobloch, in her book Botanical Companions draws from one therapist and one theorist who argue that development in human relationships lies in how a person tries to differentiate oneself from others (by which it also means creating the self in others), and then extending those sense of self to the larger contexts and arena. Then it would mean that it's absolutely fine that these people are driven by what they consider important, personally. The relationship and interconnected themselves stem from the fact that these personal reasons meet, work together, sometimes collide and disagree with each other. But these reasons meet, and they work together for a cause. One member considers that this "working together for a cause" is more applicable to the definition of "social network" than what we nowadays call social networks, something like Facebook. This one member whom I interviewed says that Freecycle (working together to help the needs of the community - albeit mostly virtually, although also physically in a certain locality )is a social network to solve social problems. It is much better than in Facebook, where everybody is pretending that they actually have relationships with those.. 800-some people? (Wait, that's me, blog! Hahaha)
Well, he may be right, although nowadays people also use Facebook as a medium to work together for a cause and what unites them together are not, again, personal relationships, but the same passion and willingness to voice what they want to voice and do what they need to do.

And blog, I'm still doing some formatting and footnoting right now. And then I'll print the draft and read it once again before I submit it to my thesis chair tomorrow. Sorry blog. It's not that I don't enjoy you anymore, but there's that feeling of urgency now all over me that I have to move, move, and move. Hope tomorrow would be a better day so that I can visit you longer, okay?
Thanks so much for understanding, blog! You're the best!