Intimacy in virtuality.

An autoethnographic project depicting how social media practices mediate experiences of intimacy and connection. All GIFs were created by the author. Diary excerpts are italicised.

[neckkiss]

By Kenny Barker

[kissedbythevoid]

[intimacy-in-virtuality]

“I haven't seen her in months, yet these little glimpses of the world through her eyes felt like I was with her for a second”.

Post 1

Using Instagram allowed me to maintain connections without the pressure of constant texting/messaging, fostering an odd sense of intimacy. Despite not conversing for weeks due to a friend moving abroad, I checked the app multiple times a day for her updates. I felt like I could see into her head with each post. Images are not just representations of the world but part of it – ‘inextricably linked’ with reality (Sontag, 1977:6) – highlighting why snippets of her perception seemed to communicate so much about her psyche; more than than some conversations. Paradoxically, I felt closer to her even without speaking – a “distant closeness” (Van House, 2007:102). Rather than being distancing/objectifying, I experienced SM’s visual nature as bonding/intimate (Ingold, 2011:315), enabling our connection to evolve when it may otherwise stagnate.

[intimacy-in-virtuality]

“Sometimes I think the virtuality makes it easier to be honest; my mouth would falter if I were to speak these words out loud”.

Post 2

Communicating through Facebook with a long-distance romantic interest enabled a level of vulnerability that I often find difficult to express offline. Only being represented by and faced with an avatar afforded a level of anonymity that enabled me to “experiment with a new identity” (Turkle, 2011:324), increasing authenticity without hesitation. Such increased vulnerability amplified trust and honesty, illustrating SM’s integral role in the “maintenance and strengthening” of connections (Costa, 2016:84). While I previously considered SM interactions less influential due to their lack of physicality, it is precisely this aspect that allowed me increased vulnerability, authenticity, and connection.

[intimacy-in-virtuality]

“Sometimes a photo/video/message isn't enough. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but how could any of that compare to catching someone's eye in real time”.

Post 3

Many of my virtual interactions were fulfilling and fostered connection, though there was also an underlying parasociality to them. Not receiving a response or failing to see a post for a while quickly led me to thoughts of rejection/neglect; ‘Have they blocked me?’ ‘Was it something I did?’. As Turkle (2013:10) notes, “longed for here is the pleasure of full attention” – something I found is never truly achieved in the virtual world. Due to the nature of SM algorithms, focus is constantly being diverted online, which impedes intimacy and connectedness. This elucidates the agency SM exercises as a technical object, and the relative inferiority I felt when at its mercy.

[intimacy-in-virtuality]

“Ultimately, I turn my phone off, and it’s just me”.

Post 4

At the end of each day, I relived an unsettling sensation: when the screen turned off, the connection was lost. The intimacy I experienced was simply contained in/provided by this little metal box. Miller et al (2016:100) argue that online existences are indissoluble from offline realities, though in these moments they felt so separate; echoing Turkle’s (2013:9) findings that teenagers felt “more alive than ever when connected but disoriented and alone when they leave their screens”. Despite knowing that these connections were meaningful, and hoping for their longevity, I struggled to fully internalise it. As alluded to earlier, it is easy to mistake the lack of physicality for a lack of reality.

[intimacy-in-virtuality]

Concluding thoughts

SM platforms like Instagram and Facebook mediated my intimacy experiences in numerous ways. They augmented my connections with others by enabling me to communicate more comfortably and giving me an unencumbered way to remain updated/engaged. Nevertheless, the same mechanisms that afforded these benefits simultaneously contributed to feelings of alienation and hyperawareness of my physical solitude. SM’s impact on intimacy/connection is complex and nuanced, analogous to experiences that transpire offline.

[intimacy-in-virtuality]

References

Costa, Elisabetta. 2016. Social Media in Southeast Turkey. 1st ed. Vol. 3. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1g69z14.

Ingold, T., 2011. Worlds of sense and sensing the world: a response to Sarah Pink and David Howes. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, 19(3), pp.313-317.

Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J. and Wang, X., 2016. How The World Changed Social Media. How the World Changed Social Media (Vol. 1).

Sontag, S. 1977. On Photography. London: Penguin.

Turkle, S. (2013) DIGITAL INTIMACY IS NO PANACEA. ATA Magazine. 93 (3), 8–11.

Turkle, S 2011, Alone Together : Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [16 April 2023].

Van House, N.A. 2007. Flickr and Public Image-Sharing: Distant Closeness and Photo Exhibition. New York, ACM Press