Why “Digital”? Why “Intimacy”?

Why “Intimacy”?

As stated in the project origin, "Intimacy" is a challenging topic for me, primarily because it encompasses life-determining concepts which I have always grappled with, rather than simply because I am a graduate student who has never read enough. In its early sociological discussions played out in modern times (Giddens 1992), this word functions almost as the equivalent of "sexuality." As Dobson and her colleagues (2018) reflect on the legacy of critical intimacy studies (e.g., Berlant, 1998; Illouz, 2007) and call for a feminist and queer-oriented approach, I saw the merits more in expanding our horizons than establishing a brand new field. A comparable example is the coining of "queer theories" as a vision to expand LGBT/Gay and Lesbian Studies, though they eventually collided in institutionalization. Similarly, the continuous project of "digital intimacies" in terms of both the edited volume and the decade-long symposiums (2015-present) offers an emancipating framework for us to move beyond the early discussions on sex/para-relationships on social media and understand the connective affect from and around us.

That being said, as someone from Asia with a background in queer fandom studies, I feel both a sense of belonging and an urge to contribute my perspective to this expanding project. This effort will be particularly evident in my design for the module "Transformative Intimacy and Digital Worlding," where I aim to draw inspiration from the conversations on Otaku culture, which are among the first to address media-based sexualities and networked communities.

Why “Digital”?

Comparatively, I found this question more challenging than distinguishing between different types of "intimacy." Platform-related discussions have been increasingly prevalent, which partially mirrors the growing platformization of our personal lives in reality. However, in line with previous projects, this project maintains the term "digital" to refer to specific forms of digital intimacy that are still relevant and significant in today's society. These include interactions between humans, AI, robots, and gadgets, which do not necessarily involve platforms or other digital products that are not connected to the internet.

Juggling between the qualifiers "digital" and "platformed" also interpellates what aspect or characteristics of "intimacy" I put most emphasis on. While both qualifiers highlight the materiality and conditions, or in the context of platform studies, "affordances," upon which intimacy takes place, the determiner "platformed" seems to further suggest an internet-born/based connectivity between humans. However, the ambiguity of “the digital” allows for investigation into intimacy with “things” we keep to ourselves, such as the videotape we watched that summer, the album we used to listen to on music player in high school, or the digital pet we’ve been caring for for over a year.

Keywords like "networked," "internet," "online," "cyber," "virtual," and "mediated" share similar thought processes, each addressing one or more aspects of intimacy. Overall, to me, "digital" more effectively conveys the time, the consciousness, and the subjectification of individuals and groups utilizing and influenced by the digital, thus more promising for a collaborative project across times, places, and disciplines.