Dialectic of Semantic Spaces: Understanding the Experiences of Virtual’s Subjects on Facebook

Authors
Nariman Mohammadi
Ali Rabani
Abstract
Our research seeks to understand the meanings that virtual subjects make of their dwellings on Facebook. To achieve this, classic Grounded Theory Method in particular Glazer’s version (classic version) was applied. Our sample comprised 17 Facebook virtual actors who were interviewed using unstructured in-depth interview technique. As the result suggest, we may say that six main categories, including virtual emancipation, virtual form of real action, fantasy formations, pleasure of consumption and threat of control, spatial interactions and the proliferation of liquid fear are interconnected with each other. Also, these categories articulate the experience of facebook subjects in relation to the “virtualization of meaning” - the core category. By linking these categories in the theoretical coding phase, the theoretical diagram was explored and presented. The theoretical foundation of this diagram lies on the entanglement of cyberspace and real space in the experiences of virtual subjects on Facebook’s space. This implies that the possibility of assuming a “dialectics of semantic spaces”. There is a dialectics between semantic spaces.

Keywords

 
h  Adorno, Theodor W & Horkheimer, Max (1979). The culture industry From: Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.
h  Meeker, Mary(2004). Family Surrogate Decision Making at the End of Life: Seeing Them Through With Care and Respect, Qualitative Health Research, Vol.4, no.2, PP: 204-225.
h  Bardzell, Sh & Odom, W (2008) The Experience of Embodied Space in Virtual Worlds: An Ethnography of a Second Life Community, “Space and Culture”, Vo.11, No.3, PP: 339 – 359.
h  Bauman, Z & Lyon, D (2013). Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. Cambridge: Polity.
h  Carter, D (2005). Living in Virtual Communities:  Ethnography of Human Relationships in Cyberspace, Information, “Communication & Society”, Vol.8, No. 2, PP: 148 – 167.
h  Carter, D (2006). Living in Virtual Communities: Making Friends Online, “Journal of Urban Technology”, Vol.11, No.3, PP: 109 – 125.
h  Castells, Manuel (2007). Communication, Power  and Counter-Power in the Network Society, International Journal of Communication, Vol 1, No. 1, PP: 238-266.
h  Creswell J.W (2012). Educational Reserach: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th ed. Pearson.
h  Doel, M & Clarke, D (1999). Virtual worlds. Simulation, suppletion, (ed)uction and simulacra. In: M. Crang, P. Crang and J. May, eds. Virtual Geographies. Bodies, space and relations. London/New York: Routledge, 261-283.
h  Fantone, L (2003). Final Fantasies: Virtual Women's Bodies, “Feminist Theory”, Vol.4, No.1, PP: 72 – 51.
h  Glaser, B. G.  (1978). Theoretical sensitivity.Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
h  Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago: Aldine.
h  Glaser, B & Holton, J (2005). Basic Social Process (BSP), grounded theory review, an international journal, No.3, Vol.4, PP: 1 – 29.
h  Higgin, T (2009): Blackless Fantasy; the Disappearance of Race in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, “Games and Culture”, Vol.4, No.1, PP: 3 – 26.
h  Lacan, J(1985). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book 11. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis [S.11], New York/London: Norton & Company.
h  Morley, D., (1980). The Nationwide Audience, London: British Film Institute.
h  Urquhart, C (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publication.
 
Cultural Studies & Communication
Volume 14, Issue 52
Autumn 2018
Pages 91-120