The Ironic Inequities of a Place Called Zoom

Is Zoom a place?

Let’s face it. Although lacking the physical realities of human proximity, Zoom interactions approximate those that otherwise occur in public streets and squares. Scholars of place such as Edward Relph have maintained that physical placemaking is but one of many ways to “ground” the intangibles of human association and community.

Over the past weeks of pandemic-era propinquity (featuring digital communication methods unavailable in the plague years), most of us have experienced Zoom events, meetings, or happy hours. Their redemption is unregulated participation, despite the occasional annoyance of motor-mouth domination, gaudy beach backdrops, and other snazzy places of supposed envy.

A snazzy Zoom backdrop, Malvern, UK

But, in reality, sometimes Zoom places exhibit an Achilles heel for those who join in. These meetings can be places of monopoly and exclusion driven by the infamous “moderator’s prerogative,” where controlling cults of personality find new means of expression. This is particularly ironic when the advertised Zoom topic focuses on the pandemic-driven loss of democratic, public places for which Zoom is a stand-in.