By: Carter Cox
The article I read this week dealt with the concept of mobile intimacy when involving family-related long-distance relationships. This article specifically addressed how families who are split up by geographic location can still restage festive family rituals through mobile communication.
This particular dynamic can often be overlooked when studying mobile communication. It is more common, especially in recent times, to focus on the negative aspects of mobile media including addiction, obsessiveness, or other harmful qualities. However, it is important to remember just how much is possible through modern mobile communication.
This study identified three different types of rituals that families have: (a) standard cultural practices like weddings and baptisms, (b) organized family events like birthdays and anniversaries, and (c) commonly practiced interactions such as family dinners or weekend activities. All of these traditions are very important to the family dynamic. They promote cohesion, interconnection, and overall emotional attachment. Since all of these types of interactions usually take place in-person, what happens when a family is split up over several different countries?
The current state of mobile communication has significantly helped the mending of this problem. Although it may not be the richest form of communication, interaction through cell phones or other mobile devices is still a viable option. For example, a long-distance video call from your mother or father can still feel personal for the person receiving it. According to the article, mobile media has now created a sense of “virtual travel”.
Although mobile communication certainly has its transnational benefits, this is not to say it comes without side effects. Long-distance mobile intimacy requires the help of many external factors, such as Internet access, affordability, and time. Ultimately, mobile media cannot replace the rich nature of physical togetherness. Mobile devices can be used to sustain relationships, but only to some degree. The article had a great example of this feeling. In 2012, a fridge repairman in Melbourne could not return home to his family for Christmas because of work obligations. Instead, he arranged a Skype call so he could spend some virtual time with his loved ones. However, the entire situation left him feeling more homesick than before. He could hear and see everyone – but he still did not feel present.
Mobile communication and long-distance relationships have a complicated relationship. On one hand, it facilitates virtual quality time and can provide much needed emotional attachment when loved ones are distanced away. On the other hand, pre-existing inequalities can further increase feelings of isolation. Objectification certainly comes into play with this concept of long-distance mobile intimacy. Social inequalities, especially for migrant transnational families, continue to be amplified in the digital world. For there to be effective transnational mobile communication, all participants have to have a reliable connection, competent devices, and the list goes on. Essentially, the article ends with the idea that mobile communication can help sustain long-distance relationships. However, like most aspects of advanced mobile communication, the process seems to help more for those who are technologically-privileged.
Comments