How do we know when a media technology is maturing? Look at how well it reflects society. Communications technologies often start with a limited set of users, and often a limited appeal. And there are often contradictory forces at work in media innovation, for example when Monk scribes gave way to Gutenberg’s printing press. Religious elite lost some cache, but the rewards were expanded literacy and increased creativity in literature.

Photography is an early example of a media that could both document life and afford artists a new medium to reflect life. But today there is a major difference: ubiquity. In 1997, it was estimated that there were more than 150 billion photographs existed in the U.S., and that was well before digital cameras. Today almost everyone has access to a still and video camera. Yesterday’s photojournalism is today’s snapshots. And the advent of photo sharing is also blurring the lines between amateur and commercial photography.

Music has been around about as long as Homo sapiens, and perhaps since the Homo neanderthalensis. But the transformative nature of music, its ability to fuel the social activism of the 1960s, for example, could only occur with innovations recording (starting with the phonograph) and distribution (beginning with radio). With the advent of Internet music sharing, there is a new wave of do-it-yourself creativity in music, whether through self-published albums, mashups, or local iPod DJ nights.

Documentary and experimental film is as old as the medium itself. But documentaries of the early 20th century were from the viewpoint of a few documentarians. One side of innovation in film distribution has increased the public’s access to our homes, cars, even stadium seating. The other side is more the surge in production. Just look at the Viewer Created Content on Current TV to understand how everyone from high school students to priests and drug dealers are sharing their point of view. And motion pictures are increasingly activist: The box office now has hits with political editorials, documentaries about global warming or docudramas about genocide.

So what about video games? Where do they fit in? It depends who you ask. Those under 40, probably grew up playing them and understand the appeal. The baby boomers have likely avoided video games, save for the ones that best imitate the card games they grew up with. First person shooter games have often been blamed for increased violence. The Economist magazine would beg to differ (see chart at right). Perhaps violent video games don’t reflect crime patterns perfectly, but they do reflect what’s CBS weeknight programming pretty well.

But do video games reflect more than violence in society? More on that shortly.

Sources & Notes:

DVDs include all DVD video software shipments in North America. Data provided by Digital Entertainment Group
Book sales data: Seattle Times
Movie Tickets: Motion Picture Association of America
CDs sales include only CD albums. No CD singles, LPs or downloaded music was included. Data provided by Record Industry Association of America
Games include computer and videogames. Data provided by the Entertainment Software Association

According to a recent paper by Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears, the number of Americans saying they have no one with whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled from 1985 to 2004. The study used the same questions from the 1984 survey to determine how social networks have changed over time. The core question was:

“From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking back over the last six months—who are the people with whom you discussed matters important to you? Just tell me their first names or initials.”

The study found that the average number of people in our personal networks has decreased from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004. They also found that women’s social networks are more likely to involve non-kin: As women have moved from homemakers to the workforce, they have increased their number of confidants outside the family unit.

The authors offer several caveats for the extraordinary change in less than two decades: a change in the interpretation of the question, a different view of what is “important” in a post-9-11 world, and finally, actual differences in the way we interact.

Indeed, we do work more hours, commute longer distances, and communicate in new ways. All of these are likely contributors to the change. The Internet has made it possible to remain geographically dispersed while finding people with similar interests. Barry Wellman calls this concept “networked individualism.”

Communication via the Internet is also more public: Diaries once under lock and key are now blogs with hundreds of readers. A note once left on a work colleague’s desk is now an email with several other recipients copied. Open communication might make the idea of a confidant a less relevant concept. Asking someone in an Internet chat room for advice on how to deal with a parent with Alzheimer’s certainly qualifies as “discussing an important matter” even the person who responds remains anonymous.

Perhaps a recent paper from the Pew Internet & American Life Project puts it best:

“Instead of disappearing, people’s communities are transforming: The traditional human orientation to neighborhood- and village-based groups is moving towards communities that are oriented around geographically dispersed social networks. People communicate and maneuver in these networks rather than being bound up in one (solitary) community.”

Source: “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades.” Miller McPherson Lynn Smith-Lovin, Matthew E. Brashears; American Sociological Review, 2006, VOL. 71 (June:353–375)