I remember reading a collection of short stories by a female Bengali author named Bharati Mukherjee. Through a collection of short stories, she illustrated the tensions in relationships that were a result of cultural differences. One major takeaway I remember was that Americans are often seen as *emotionally lazy*. That much of the world’s criticism about our culture is that even our most intimate relationships are, at their core, transactional.

I think it’s such an interesting and profound observation to make that social media could be bringing humanity into our transactions. It may even be ironic that technology is enabling this humanity to take a precedence.

I hope you’re right. :)

one was to distinguish between eastern and western concepts of reputation. which I think i did OK at.

the second was to argue that reputation and relationship *should be* deeply intertwined, that one depended on the other. I think i did a bad job of portraying this point.

the third was to argue that what had happened in the west was that people managed somehow to separate reputation and relationship. And this I couldn’t even understand. this point I made an awful job of.

so I will write a follow-up post and concentrate on that last point. sometime. sometime soon

you make good points, thanks for stopping by.

The premise seems to be that relationships are more important then reputations. But, as you properly – in my opinion – point out, “Reputation is deeply intertwined with relationship, reputation is an embodiment of what your relationships say about you.” (And in any case, I’m not sure what abundance vs. scarcity has to do in leading to the conclusion.)

So… if reputation almost by definition precedes a relationship – or later impinges upon one’s perspective of a relationship – how is that archaic? For a moment, I’ll go back to the original quote… “the word “reputation” is so 1990. today it’s all about relationships”

For starters, the fact that reputation became and remains a buzzy thing doesn’t mean relationships were any less important though the 90s. And just because more people are discovering social networks as a buzzy thing, (even though social nets pre-dated any form of online communication anyway), doesn’t make reputation passe.

My lazily reached point? The particular buzzword that punditry seems to bemuse itself with pontificating upon as the Web 2.3457 think du jour doesn’t mean that there’s any real fire amidst the smoke. Or even if there is, it doesn’t mean that one has to or should declare something of importance dead simply because it was overhyped as hype.

Outside the context of hierarchy or accident of geography or similar, relationships are generally by choice and somewhat purposeful. And either way, while it may be interesting for definitions and thought experiments to separate them, it’s rather foolish to discard declare something passe when it it is inextricably intertwined with the very thing you’re now saying is the next thing.

In terms of the reputation services being more about the bad then the good; how are these not the same thing? Good/bad, half full/half empty is a matter of perspective. One could argue – perhaps weakly – that every marketing list sold is a list of “good” prospects for a product or service.

Lastly, I’m all for your take on East vs. West in terms of seeming desirous of onymous sources. Our modern, mobile society can make that difficult. Sociologist Amitai Etzioni – in for example, The Limits of Privacy – discusses how some of this has come about. But suffice it to say, it’s related to the need for third party reputation management in a world where transactions happen with individuals’ far outside their tribe. So it might not be true that “Your reputation precedes you,” but… others can maybe check later if they feel the need.