THE VIRTUAL AND THE REAL

Abstract

Lately, the world has been experiencing a massive growth in technological advancement and more and more of our social interaction is being transferred to the virtual sphere. Although we have been accustomed to perceiving society as an element of the tangible world, during the Covid 19 pandemic it became evident that virtual interactions could fulfil many functions of society. But as any new development does, this new phenomenon of increasing virtual interaction brings to mind several questions regarding its nature, the question of its reality and some social consequences.

In seeking to compare the virtual world with the tangible world, I will analyse the following interrelated aspects of the topic at hand: (1) Differences between the real world and the virtual world. (2) Does the virtual world imitate or replace reality? (3) Individual sovereignty and freedom in the virtual domain and its consequences. (4) Social media's illusion of equality.

Society, as we have historically understood it, is a universal entity that existed far before human beings even thought to examine or analyse it. The existence of tangible society was an essential precondition for the existence of men and women, for the survival of humankind requires interdependence and interaction. Thus the social world was born out of people’s innate need for interdependence and the human faculty for reason and thought that enables us to construct a universal consciousness to form connections and forge the foundations of a functioning society. While the virtual world is often thought of as an extension of society or just another of its elements, for the sake of comparison and to expose certain fundamental differences of origin and nature, I will temporarily treat it as a separate entity. When considered, the virtual world was entirely born of the creative endeavour, of the conscious and deliberate effort of humans. Yes, one might disagree by saying that this too was a fruit of our need for interdependence and interaction, of the intellectual and cognitive prowess of human beings. But there are obvious differences. The common social awareness that causes people to spontaneously interact with their environment, collectively create rules, norms, roles etc., functioning social processes, institutions and so on was an innate aspect of the self or rather a universal attribute of the collective human consciousness. This universal attribute of humankind was in many ways, a common point of orientation for different unique individuals to transcend their immediate divisions and take on their respective roles and responsibilities as members of an ordered society. Further, the fulfilment of this common need does not necessarily require any tangible object or any special skill, since along with the need, the faculties or abilities to satisfy it have also been inherently embedded into the human self. In definite contrast, the virtual world was a scientific creation of humans, a result of technological advancement that aimed to add comfort and convenience to the lives of men and women. People were required to adapt to it and learn how to use it. It was a conscious invention that facilitated among other things, interaction and communication. Its operation mandates the possession of certain material objects.

Here, closely intertwined is another radical distinction. The visible social world is a grand, total ensemble or conglomeration of its own. The individual is entirely subjugated to it. One must venture out into it, learn how to navigate it and to survive in it. One is obliged to submit to its authority and be obedient to the engagements, responsibilities, and expectations that it demands of you. No individual can hope to survive apart from the structures of society. On the other hand, to a very great extent, the individual retains a good degree of control and autonomy over the virtual world. She is not obligated to be a part of it and it only gains dominance over her such as she accords to it.

However, as social interaction and the functioning of society come to depend more and more upon the virtual sphere, the individual who is forced to consent to social demands and changes cannot help but surrender to its widening reach. Once caught, there is no escape. This serves to demonstrate C. Wright Mill’s theory about the interaction of history and biography. It is impossible for the individual's private life to remain wholly unaffected by the course of history and the changes in society. Thus, it would seem that the virtual world has already become an established institution of society. We might say that it is rapidly being blended in or drawn into the fabric of society so that one finds it difficult to comprehensively differentiate it from the visible social world. The boundaries between the two are growing fainter. Or one might even wonder if there are any boundaries in the first place!

To gain greater clarity over the increasingly blurred boundaries that separate the real world from the virtual one, we might question the extent to which it resembles or imitates reality and also if it ever succeeds in replacing it. To accomplish this, we must first ask ourselves what reality is. According to a fundamental concept of Indian philosophy that was derived from early Vedic mythology, everything that we see around us is considered to be ‘maya’, which is Sanskrit for "illusion". The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a God can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion". This interestingly supplements the philosopher, Immanuel Kant's theory of empiricism which holds that it is impossible to know reality. This is because there is a difference between an object in reality and our perception of it. Thus, what we understand as reality is what our cognitive faculties imbibe from our senses and the information absorbed by the senses can never be proved perfectly accurate since we cannot have any knowledge of the world apart from that which we receive through our sense organs. Or as the American philosopher Norman L. Geisler writes, "One can know what something is to-him but never what it is in-itself." Therefore, we can never be fully sure that our senses aren’t deceiving us! In 1837 the Scottish philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle referred to an expression that perfectly illustrates this concept: "For indeed it is well said, 'in every object there is inexhaustible meaning; the eye sees in it what the eye brings means of seeing.' To Newton and to Newton’s Dog Diamond, what a different pair of Universes; while the painting on the optical retina of both was, most likely, the same!" Therefore the prominent writer Anaïs Nin made a remark in one of her books, "We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are."

It is through sensation or environmental stimuli that our senses ingest information that leads to perception. The virtual world provides visual and auditory stimuli that tries to closely resemble the mentally constructed image of reality in our minds. In a way, one could say that it offers a sort of duplicated stimuli that was created through scientific and technological prowess to manifest a compact source of secondary stimuli by assimilating primary sensory information from an environment and transmitting it as specific secondary stimuli that was filtered out of its surroundings. Thus, the device, this product of technology, acts as a medium of interconnection between two environments which are separated by the laws of the physical world. According to the empirical tradition, it is impossible to know the real physical world. But in contrast, the virtual world and the science of its functioning are completely within our knowledge as it is a human-made creation. 

Then, how does the absence of primary empirical information from the immediate environment affect the resemblance of the virtual world to our perceived reality? Let us compare an event or programme which is conducted virtually with one which is conducted physically. The differences obviously, are enormous. First of all, its participants do not share the same environment or surroundings. This will have definite consequences. While each individual’s visual and auditory stimuli, although duplicated, will be identical, it will be overpowered by his immediate environmental stimuli which is more relevant and engaging to his senses. Participation in such a virtual programme, would more closely parallel the act of watching a movie than the act of attending a social event. Although we hear many people say that through the virtual world, we can be together in mind if not in body, the mind is greatly influenced by bodily sensations, and the stimuli from our immediate surroundings would affect us to a far greater extent than the visual and auditory content our senses absorb from the screen, which is a secondary stimuli for us, perhaps even detached from our reality. For example, in an online class, students find it extremely easy to be engaged in other activities while simultaneously preserving an appearance of attending the class; i.e, a student could be watching a movie, but still unmute and speak when she is asked a question by the teacher. The difference is that students in an online class have the option of choosing between the alternatives of either focusing on the class, which is artificially generated stimuli or attending to other distractions in their immediate environment. But a physical classroom would demand each student's complete and undivided attention and it is much more difficult to pretend like you are concentrating on the class, since everyone shares the same physical environment. To make it clearer, the solemn and demanding atmosphere of an offline gathering such as a class, a conference etc. would place a sort of positive stress or pressure on you because you are enveloped by your immediate stimuli which insist on being attended to. By contrast, in virtual conferences you experience a certain degree of control and comfort in the familiarity of your private surroundings and one is likely to feel dissociated or alienated from anything that is happening in another space, since there are limits to how much it can affect you.

Thus, to the question of whether the virtual world replaces reality, it must be understood that interaction on the virtual platform is a projection of what we perceive reality to be. It is built on the foundations or assumptions of an imagined reality. This idea of the virtual as being once removed from reality is expounded upon in Jean Baudeillard's concept of hyperreality which "results from the fusion of the virtual and the real into a third order of reality"(Baudeillard's concept of Hyperreality). The concept further captures "the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality". (Hyperreality: Jean Baudrillard, PDF file) Thus advancements in technology are slowly turning the virtual into an ingredient of the mental construct of reality that exists in our minds. 

In an earlier paragraph, I talked about the autonomy that an individual enjoys in the virtual domain. And this brings us to a deeper examination of this freedom and sovereignty. In what way does virtual communication differ from in-person interaction when juxtaposed with it? On one hand, the scope for communication and the expression of personality is limited. We might say that although the rudimentary goals of communication are gratified, such interaction takes place devoid of its usual accompaniments of gesture, expression, intonation and other non-verbal cues. It must be noted here that in spite of the fact that video calls or conferencing provide visual stimuli, this is subject to a lot of limitations and restrictions so that the information received by our senses is often insufficient for our minds to form a full and complete perception. 

Yet on the other hand, interaction in the virtual world, subjective to the individual, is much more controllable, it becomes less spontaneous or natural and is permissively premeditated. It is extremely easy to choose how you come across to people and to determine your public image. It offers an opportunity which can be positive for the self but negative for the other, to control another’s conception of yourself through a myriad of features provided by various social media platforms. Indeed, this quality of the virtual domain affords immense possibilities for the person herself that she would not have been provided in the physical world because her behaviour, image and appearance in society is also governed by factors outside her control such as ascribed characteristics which are the properties of an individual attained at birth, by inheritance, or through the aging process, social status, social group etc. It would thus be comparatively harder to command society’s perception of yourself in the real world. But unfortunately, this kind of autonomy has led to an erosion of authenticity and honesty as people are able to create insincere online versions of themselves which are often not genuine.

This sovereignty and freedom enjoyed in the virtual world is not limited to the personal sphere of the individual alone, but extends outside of him to the broader, common realm as well. The virtual arena offers each individual a voice, the liberty to comment or express an opinion upon anything and everything. In many ways, it has provided a platform for personal views, differing stances and stifled voices to be heard. It might be said that freedom, and even equality is a foundational attribute of the virtual domain. This, of course, should primarily be viewed as a constructive property that contributes to a dissemination of the democratic spirit. However, when absolute and uninhibited freedom of speech is promulgated among all people, devoid of any caution, new circumstances and phenomenon are bound to arise. 

Notably, this has led to an erosion of intelligent, dispassionate discussion that seeks as its objective, intellectual enlightenment. Often, what one articulates on the virtual platform, is not a reasoned out, coherent thought or opinion, but simply an emotion or instinctive reaction that an event, statement or development awakens in us. Thus, it creates an occasion for the occurrence of lazy, meaningless and futile thinking that is enabled by a common attribute of human nature, the urge to convey one's judgment or opinion on all happenings. This, coupled with the anonymity and lack of accountability on social media, has led to emotions raging in a frenzied tumult for and against various matters, but accomplishing very little. And thus, because of the increased visibility of the common, public temper, emotions govern far too much in the world today. Comments and posts on social media can go viral and spiral out of control, often having serious effects in the real world. They have been known to spark riots, instigate hate and violence, create misunderstanding and prejudice and even destroy people's lives. This becomes detrimental because the greatest potential of humankind lies in our faculty for reason and conscious thought. When emotion overpowers reason, there is little left to set human beings apart from animals.

Now let us examine another result of this free expression that also relates to the overthrowing of reason. The virtual world institutes greater scope for binding group cohesion and groupthink as individuals operate on a common platform. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines groupthink as "a mode of thinking in which individual members of small cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal." Even as individual freedom is exhorted and reinforced, when individual expression becomes increasingly evident, it ultimately results in convergence, conflict, exclusion and pressure to conform to the common opinion. One might ask how this can be so when individual sovereignty is a fundamental building block of the virtual world. This happens because the greater visibility of individual stances and views ensures that the popular opinion consolidates into the new common, accepted public opinion, thus leaving less and less space for differing standpoints and opposing views. When the differing views of individuals are clearly visible, the popular or common opinion becomes easily identifiable, therefore forcing people to conform to it.

Even the word 'virtual' denotes something that only "appears to exist" and therefore, the reality of everything that we experience in the virtual world, can be justly questioned. So it is perhaps more appropriate to say that social media creates merely an "illusion" of equality. In the tangible social world, we know that human beings are unequal in many different ways. Although we might believe in the enlightenment concept of natural moral equality, (i.e, human beings are already inherently equal in some fundamental sense, simply by virtue of their being or what they are, and therefore entitled to be treated as equals), we do know that they are not equal with respect to many concrete conditions of social life-- in treatment, opportunities, participation etc. This is the kind of equality that comes from outside a person i.e it is dependent upon external factors which determine whether people are equal or not.

But as long as one has a functioning electronic device and an internet connection, the resources of the virtual world and the opportunities afforded by it are equally accessible to all people. It is true that there might be differences in each person's degree of influence and reach; but nevertheless, we are all endowed with the same technological prowess to work with and use to our own advantage. In contrast, people are placed at different degrees of advantage or disadvantage in the tangible social world. 

The philosopher Spinoza believed that in a 'state of nature', which is described as "that mythical time prior to laws and moral codes, frequently imagined by early modern philosophers", "people are born unequal, with unequal levels of power and right". This state can be said to have been replaced by the hypothetical social contract, popular among Enlightenment philosophers, which is defined as "an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection." And Beth Lord, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, writes, "In Spinoza’s version of the social contract, each individual retains her natural power to seek her advantage. She does not give that power to a king, but pools it with the common power of the whole population. In the democratic state, individuals continue to seek their advantage according to their own natural right or power, but they are now subject to civil laws and enjoy greater security." What I wish to reiterate is that according to Spinoza's theory, equality is not a natural feature of the physical world. This is one more indicator of how unreal the virtual world is– only in an artificially created sphere, could human beings be accorded a great degree of sameness in resources and opportunity. 

The potential of technological advancement and the possibilities created by the virtual world is greatly addressed and explored in the present age. It is often implied that the services of the virtual world have allowed us to transcend the limits of time and space. But I find it more precise to say that these facilities have only proved to more firmly reiterate the demarcations and limitations that time and space have imposed upon us. Because virtual technology has only served one purpose, it has enabled us to defeat any impediments to free interaction and has allowed us to connect with each other although with constraints, unhindered by the bounds of time and space. However, the virtual world has not served to defeat its rules in any other way. By making evident the impossibility of transcending the restraints of the physical world, it has reinforced the truth that we are still greatly governed by the limitations of the body!

Human society has evolved and transformed throughout history to become what it is today. The virtual world is a relatively new institution of society and only time will reveal the course it will take and the ways in which it will influence and transform society.

References

   Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "maya". Encyclopedia Britannica, 9 Mar. 2015, https://www.britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy. Accessed 13 August 2022.

   Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History. James Fraser, 1837.

   Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Books, 1999

   Lord, Beth. "Are We Morally Equal By Nature". The Forum For Philosophy, 15 February, 2016.

   Mills, C.Wright. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, 1959.

   Nin, Anaïs. Seduction of the Minotaur: A Swallow Paperback. Swallow Press, 1961.

   Schmidt, Anna. "groupthink". Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 May. 2016, https://www.britannica.com/science/groupthink. Accessed 13 August 2022.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/theforum/are-we-morally-equal-by-nature/#:~:text=Our%20understanding%20of%20democracy%20is,of%20democratic%20Enlightenment%20political%20philosophy. Accessed 13 August, 2022.

   Mambrol, Nasrullah. "Baudrillard’s Concept of Hyperreality". Literariness.org, 2016, https://literariness.org/2016/04/03/baudrillards-concept-of-hyperreality/. Accessed 13 August, 2022.

   "Hyperreality: Jean Baudrillard". mlsu. https://www.mlsu.ac.in/econtents/2289_hype. PDF file.