![\"image\"](\"http:\/\/media.tumblr.com\/90589bc309b641ae7f6acfe82f019830\/tumblr_inline_mvjtuqUA2C1s88eo4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s all about networking.\u201d\u00a0 Do you want a job?\u00a0 Network.\u00a0 Do you want some open doors?\u00a0 Network.\u00a0 Do you want to be successful?\u00a0 Network.\u00a0 Do you want to be better equipped for life?\u00a0 Network.\u00a0 Is the old concept of networking still valid in 2013?\u00a0 What do we mean by networking?\u00a0 Are we talking about people or about virtual information technologies or about both?<\/p>\n
Anthony Elliott\u2019s Contemporary Social Theory<\/em> (2009)[1]<\/a> is a timely \u2013 and tough \u2013 read.\u00a0 Social Theory as a discipline tries to understand and explain the ways humans relate to one another.\u00a0 In his text, Elliott gives us a lot to think about in regards to social order.\u00a0 Unlike our readings in theology, which focus on God\u2019s role in the history of humankind, social theory focuses on a diversity of thought on how humans function in groups and in societies \u2013 without a concern for God.\u00a0 However, the similarity between theology and social theory is that even though the theorists often build on each other\u2019s thoughts, they do not always agree with one another.\u00a0 Even as there are different denominations to delineate among theological perspectives, so are there different schools of thought in the diverse models of social theory.\u00a0 I wonder, after reading Elliott\u2019s work, if theology will go the way of social theory in its scope and pace.\u00a0 Will technological advances transform theology to the extent it is shaping contemporary social theory?\u00a0 As was asked in our last recent online chat, what will be the focus of Christian theology \u201cbooks\u201d in the 22nd<\/sup> century?<\/p>\n One section that caught my interest was in Chapter 9 of the text.\u00a0 Here, the author explores the thoughts of Manuel Castells on \u201cThe Network Society.\u201d\u00a0 According to Elliott, Castells believes, \u201cthat advances in information technology and especially the rise of the Internet are fundamentally transforming the core structure of networks in our own time[2]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Castells challenges his predecessors, notably Max Weber and Karl Marx, by arguing that, \u201ccommunication, computers, and information technology are at the center of global production networks[3]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 But although this seems obvious to the 21st<\/sup> century mind, Castell \u201csystematically analyzed the global structures through which the economy became networked[4]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Castells further stated that one could not understand what is going on in the world today without factoring in \u201ctimeless time\u201d and \u201cplaceless space.\u201d\u00a0 He continues, \u201cIn the network society, identities, organizations and cultural life \u2013 whether in marketing, technology, biomedicine or higher education \u2013 are increasingly restructured by accelerated space of flows, particularly in the major metropolitan centers[5]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 As Elliott further explains the primary core features of Castell\u2019s account of the \u201cspace of flows,\u201d I was especially struck by his notion of the need for \u201cpeople interspersed and interconnected within networks[6]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Although he goes on to call these people \u201cgold-colored class professionals,\u201d I found myself asking some questions.\u00a0 How can there be any social structures at all without people?\u00a0 Will computers and technology ultimately eliminate the need for human networks altogether?<\/p>\n I was in an important meeting recently that had to do with the question of how to best proceed with creating online courses at the college where I teach.\u00a0 There is an obvious split in the faculty on the issue of online education.\u00a0 Some of us see its value; others are terrified that completely online programs are not effective for epistemologically sound education.\u00a0 In other words, can anyone learn when one is not \u201cpresent\u201d with one\u2019s teacher and classmates?\u00a0 These professors have research to back their position \u2013 but so does the other side.\u00a0 The debate continues among the faculty and I hope it will not turn into caustic, warring factions.\u00a0 I (as always) see benefits in both perspectives.\u00a0 At the end of the meeting, the department chair concluded, \u201cWell, perhaps you can teach a class online, but you cannot disciple someone online.\u201d\u00a0 Another prof then replied, \u201cSure you can; I do it all the time.\u201d\u00a0 And the discussion went into round two.\u00a0 Round three happens this week at our monthly faculty meeting \u2013 it should be interesting!<\/p>\n Can one learn online?\u00a0 Can one disciple another online?\u00a0 Perhaps these are not even the right questions.\u00a0 It is not about the goodness or badness of the media or the technology.\u00a0 I think the better questions are about purpose, motivation, goals, and outcomes.\u00a0 If these are sound \u2013 if there are networks based on real human compassion, wisdom, and values \u2013 then why is it wrong?\u00a0 Why are we so afraid of the new ways of doing things?\u00a0 I don\u2019t have all the answers to these big questions just as theologians and social theorists don\u2019t have all the answers.\u00a0 But like each of them, I can add my voice, my thoughts, my theories.\u00a0 And ultimately, as Castell has conjectured, people are the ones who are responsible whether the ideas end up being a success or a failure.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n