Moving between Virtual and Real: Rational or Distressed Communication

In this article inconveniences between virtual space (VS) and real space (RS) and its probable damages have been theoretically investigated. The main aim is to analyze effects of accustoming to virtual space mechanisms and rules of creation of consciousness and perception has on the relationship and interactions in the real world. Mead’s “generalized others”, Habermas’s “communicational action” and Beck’s “risk society” has been reviewed in order to articulate the theoretical basis of the concept of “distressed communication”. It seems being drowned in virtual space and creation of virtual consciousness beside accustoming to rules and norms of virtual space has been conducted to some understanding disorders within real space. “Distressed communication” is more realized than “rational communication” in the era of hegemony of social media; the phenomenon that has resulted many damages on individual and group relationships. the problematic in here is just acting within the real on the basis and logic of virtual space. Computational error in sending message and meaningful action, being shocked by others’ reactions, expressing far desires as short-run aims are some of conceptual components of “distressed communication”. Besides holding contradictive statements, casual relationships, weakness in permanence of expressive identity, harmful and violent language are some of other components.

The article should not be reckoned as nor pessimistic and neither optimistic toward virtual space. The main problematic of this article was how participants of unrest events at almost end of 2022 in Iran were very confident for overthrowing the political state, while acting as funny and fake revolutionaries. It seemed being drowned in virtual space such as acting in social media and playing virtual games have made them to believe in the logic of virtual space could be applied in the real space. Suffering from lack of rationality of acts, that this kind of transferring would have brought about for them is one of the reasons of necessity of explaining this situation. In order to access to an applicable concept, Meads “generalized others” specially the concepts related to “putting oneself in other shoes” and “definition of situation” were very close in order to explain the main problem of communication in the real world. It seems the actors who had experiencing drowning in the virtual space who we can name them “Actors Drowned in Virtual Space” or “ADVS” while have improved their ability to communicate in the virtual space (VS), have lost the logic of interaction in the real space (RS).

Tensions between RS and VS has brought about a condition that Habermas “theory of action” specially “communicational reason” is far to be stabilized. More often this kind of tensions have resulted in irrational communication. Although the main target of Habermas was to describe the “reason” instead of “communication”, but it seems the reason is being ruined under this kind of tensions. Therefore according to the tensions between VS and RS, both “instrumental reason” as Weber suggested and “communicative reason” as Habermas suggests are far from reality of the current relationships. Within VS by governance mechanisms of the platform of social media besides the latent armies such as different group of oppositions whom partially were recently disgraced in Albania and the cost and benfits of having more followers in order to reflect more ads, talking about reason is more ironic than philosophical sophistaction.

At the margin of the article Haberms, Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Zymunt Bauman task in order to theorize globalization and late modernity has been verified. Their commitment in order to find a refuge for modernity through the concepts of “communicational reason”, risk society, liquid modernity are mostly fantasies of the real events of the world. Since the theory and concept of globalization has been challenged by the concept of “polarization” and multipolar world by Entezari (2010) suggested, while some of Iranian scholars were very resistant to it, so many articles and books have been written in order to unveil the ideological context of defending modernity (for example: Dugin 2021؛ Abbas 2022؛ Amin 2006؛ Clegg 2009؛ Deitz et al 2009؛ Plagemann 2015؛ Dee 2015؛ Mitchell et al 2013؛ Stahl 2018؛ Woodley 2015؛ Hiro 2010؛ The Saker 2015؛ Singh 2020؛ Ohanyan & Broeers 2020؛ Hussain 2016؛ Diesen 2012؛ Engel & Ramos 2013؛ Cimbala 2017؛ Lesage et al 2016؛ Silvius 2016؛ Mori 2020). Under the polarization theoretical framework, the concept of “distressed communication” instead of “rational communication” could be better explained.