In recent week’s I’ve been asked multiple times to explain the different between the central ideal in the book titled “Networked” and Integrationalism. On my last post I mentioned the term networked individualism, which per this site and the first group of essays from Integrationalism, was an older term, but more well define recently in a the great read above. Integrationalism is not about technology specifically. Kudos to Barry Wellman and Lee Rainie, they’ve done a great job of elaborating on the very tangible dependencies of our successes and pitfalls brought on by the technological might of the last few decades.
One way that I’ve always tried to explain “what” Integrationalism “is”, was to use terms like networked-individualism….as the first text was essentially an attack on the inefficiencies and ineffectivenesses of philosophies that stem from rigid individualism as an understanding of human-kind. In the second text I elaborated more on the physical connections that actually create a recognizable network and the foundations of string field theory that allude these connections…among other things.
Networked Individualism is a grand display of how human-kind and its dependents have moved away from the sociological frameworks of “tribalism”. Wellman’s text didn’t use this term specifically, but as a sociologist he refers regularly to the transition in how human-kind is surviving (discovering, developing, and deploying its progress). The term, from a philosophical standpoint is less phenomenological and more socio-cultural. Integrationalism in its shortest, replays that we are connected physiologically, and not “other-lly” (which could take on many interpretations). Network Individualism would be a manifestation of physical connections, making the perceived notion “real”.
I’ll be sure to elaborate more on this in the coming future, as I’ve found that >250 words on a post starts to lose eyeballs.