Thursday, February 25, 2010

"Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings" by Maya Socolovsky

Categories:

Summary:

In “Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings,” Maya Socolvsky discusses the psychological and sociopolitical roles of online memorials. Socolvsky states that, “Death is narrated fully, and although the departed are mourned and missed, death itself is understood and mastered [on an Internet memorial]” (476). The author goes on to explain that web memorials actually cause a different type of loss because, “the elusiveness of death that usually resides in absences has been articulated” (476). The article uses virtualmemorials.com as an example to show how web memorials replace loss with an overload of content and an “excess of presence” (473). The latter half of the article discusses other purposes for web memorials, showing examples from three Columbine memorial websites, and concluding that memorial websites can also have an agenda; they bring the living and the deceased together in a space by using this agenda. Though the article gives little indication of whom the author is, the article was published in the journal jac, volume 24, issue 2. The UNC Charlotte website lists this work associated with a “Scolovsky, Maya, Ph.D.,” an assistant professor of English at the University, with several other publications. The author makes a claim that cyber memorials are inherently different from physical memorials and can fill very different roles.


Inquiry:

I disagree with the author that web memorials lack a “haunted space”; web memorials often have the capability of being transparent through use of multimedia, and could provide such a space through videos and images relating to the memorialized event. One example cited by the author is the “Field of Empty Chairs” memorial in Oklahoma City. This memorial could be well documented in image and video to help create the same void as being at the memorial. A site could go as far as getting video and pictures from places and angles normally inaccessible to the public to create an even richer “void” than is available by visiting the memorial. Based on the reading, I propose the following:

  1. Are memorial websites (or memorials in general) justified in including a sociopolitical message? A religious message?

  2. If the congenital nature of virtually unlimited space was removed from a website (ie the website could only have so many pages or so much content), similar to the space allowed on a physical memorials, would memorial websites and physical memorials still be different?

  3. Though there is generally more content on memorial websites, is the added content really more valuable in preserving the memory of a single person?

Spread The Love, Share Our Article

Related Posts

4 comments:

  1. In response to the second question, I believe that despite that change there would still be a difference. Even if the website is limited, it still exists through the same medium. Socolovsky mainly argues against the medium of the Internet, although the infinite capacity does come into effect as well. The limited website would still offer a place where people could be remembered even after physical remnants (photographs, etc.) were gone (Socolvsky 8). This would therefore still stand under the main arguments of the article, that of Internet memorials versus physical ones, and the main question of “concrete memorialization” within the Internet medium.
    In response to the third question, I don’t think the more content necessarily is more valuable in reality. However, what the Internet provides is a “safe” medium in which pictures, and physical things, can be placed and not destroyed or lost. Socolovsky does question the vulnerability of the new medium (Socolovsky 8). So it’s not so much the added content that is more important, but rather the ability to store physical memorials through a space in which physical disasters and accidents couldn’t effect. In conclusion, then the strength of the Internet medium is actually in thanks to the physical memorials.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also in response to the second question that you asked about the readings, I agree with Olivia in the fact that even if there was a limitation on the things and space that these online memorials are able to include, there is still a vast amount of media that can be shown on the web and not on physical and tangible memorials. This aspect is so important because like Socolovsky states, the web allows for us to preserve memories in a way that were not possible in the past. The web allows for us to have interactive memorials which are preserved more effectively and for longer than tangible memories such as photographs and such like Olivia and Socolovsky said (473). While I agree with what Socolovsky has stated about the web being a positive tool in preserving the memories, I also wanted to touch on the first question that you posed about if web memorials are justified in including a message because I believe for this to be an important and controversial topic when talking about online memorials because virtual memorials provide the template and platform for an individual or a group to present their ideas and their beliefs and the readers automatically have the idea shown to them without any sort of ability to stop listening, they are automatically presented with an idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3: I do not believe the added content is more valuable in preserving a memory. A single physical monument is a standing reminder of a person or people. A website can go into more detail about someone's life, yes, but how valuable are those memories in a shared domain with people who may not necessarily have known said person in real life? Those who did know the deceased have their memories from life. Those outside relationships can never truly connect on a more intimate level to grieve. Therefore, I think a single memorial is enough to serve as a reminder for everyone that life is precious, and to appreciate all who touch our lives daily.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am an agreement with Socolovsky’s viewpoint of memorials. Physical memorabilia such as tombstones and museums are reminders of to the living of what was. It allows for an immersion of remembrance between the “ghost” and the bereaved. The Internet takes away from the sacridity of those moments. “Web memorials offer us cites of death that are full, articulate and understood. It is in one sense comforting to finally know death through the safe haven of a computer monitor (477).” Yes, there is the ability of containing more information but it is hard to envision myself engaging upon a memorial cite knowing at any moment another tab could be opened to facebook, email, etc. The Internet is such a multitude of resource. The idea that an individual can create a cite for their deceased grandparent as another can engage in pornography is demonstration of this fact. Memorials are for those in grievances, not for just anyone to invoke their two senses, like the gun control and religious groups of the columbine students. New Media has beneficially allowed for different avenues of expression and support without a doubt and may be preferable to some.

    ReplyDelete