Whether you like it or not, cyberspace has become the new frontier in social relationships. People are making friends, colleagues, lovers, and enemies on the Internet. The fervor with which many people have pursued this new social realm is matched by a backlash reaction from the skeptics. Relationships on the Internet aren't really real, some people say - not like relationships in the real world. Socializing in cyberspace is just a cultural fad, a novelty, a phase that people go through. The critics say it can't compare to real relationships -- and if some people prefer communicating with others via wires and circuits, there must be something wrong with them. They must be addicted. They must fear the challenging intimacy of real relationships.

Is this true? Is it true that "real" relationships are intrinsically superior to relationships in cyberspace? Or might relationships in cyberspace in fact be better?... Here is the showdown for us to explore.

But first, let's first settle on some terms. What exactly should we call relationships in cyberspace and relationships in the "real" world? Right off the bat, I'm going to discard the term "real" because it already biases our discussion in favor of relationships in the physical world. Whether or not those relationships are more "real" is the very issue at hand. The same is true of "virtual relationships" because the word "virtual" implies that those relationships are somehow less-than or not quite up to snuff. Some people like to say "face-to-face relationships" (ftf, f2f). I'm not particularly thrilled by that term either, because video conferencing on the Internet surely allows people to present their faces to each other. We could say "physical relationships," although that conjures up images of wrestling and sex.

Well, I've already given away my preference for a term, as you've probably guessed - unless you let the title of this article slip right by you. I like "in-person relationships" because it captures the feeling of physical presence without necessarily getting physical. I doubt that even when holographic multimedia communication arrives (many years from now?) we will ever say that we meet our Internet acquaintances "in-person." So it seems like a term that safely falls outside the realm of cyberspace. We can even abbreviate it nicely as IP and IPR.

Now, a term for cyberspace relationships.... How about (surprise again!) "cyberspace relationships" -- a.k.a., CSR? We also could follow current trends by calling it "computer-mediated relationships" (CMR), but I like the word "cyberspace." It conjures up feelings of place, location, and spatial interaction. People do indeed experience cyberspace as containing places where they go and meet others. Rather than highlighting the fact that cyberspace is controlled by computers, I like to emphasize instead that it is a psychological and social space.

With terms in hand, we're back to the showdown. Which is better? IPR or CSR? The key word here is "relationships." One approach to understanding that phenomenon is to examine the various pathways by which people communicate with and connect to each other -- by the specific mechanisms for "relating." On the most fundamental level, we can compare IPR and CSR according to how people connect via the five senses:

	hearing the other
	seeing the other
	touching the other
	smelling the other
	tasting (!) the other

In the sequels to this article, let's explore how IPR and CSR compare on each of these senses.

11/08/98

John Suler, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at Rider University and a practicing clinical psychologist. He has published on psychotherapy, mental imagery, and eastern philosophy. He currently maintains several web sites.