It’s impossible to ignore the spatial metaphors ubiquitous within the language forming around digital media (a metaphor being a method to aid oneself in visualizing an abstract concept by using a robust, concrete concept, such as movement through space). Throughout the past years, in which social media have become a fundamental part of modern social interaction, these spatial metaphors have been gradually appropriated, becoming the status quo in the manner in which we imagine virtual space.

Hereby a reality which we perceive entirely on a mute two-dimensional plane, which is comprised of tiny flickering lights, becomes enmeshed in our understanding of the self – a self which realizes itself partially through the importance of hollowed-out spaces of dwelling. These symbols are ubiquitous: the ‘home,’ button, the ‘platform,’ the ‘wall,’ the ‘back end’ and the ‘room’ are examples of metaphors which delineate space, creating a linguistic phenomenon of intimacy and privacy, while (non-)spatial metaphors such as the ‘web,’ or the ‘cloud’ imbue this entirely non-physical and unimaginable entity with a 2- or 3-dimensional spatiality in which the participant can situate themself.

When looking back on the discourse surrounding digital spatial metaphors of 6-10 years ago, it is evident that the debate has changed drastically. During this time, when theories of duality (in which we made a conscious distinction between our ‘virtual life’ and reality), were touted, which are decidedly untrue, many argued about whether digital chatrooms, messageboards and sites could be considered places. Social media were seen as connective and communicative media – portals which shortened physical distance.

The trickling of spatial language into the digital world, but also the re-programming of words that in turn re-entered our ‘analogue’ language (usually non-spatial, active words) – “sync,” “hardwire,” “update,” “bandwidth” – removes any linguistic demarcation, hinting at the (now widely-accepted) belief that you cannot contain these two world in distinct ontological spheres.

The coup de grâce against old manners of thinking about digital space seems to be delivered by the proliferance of apps such as Houseparty, which has received a massive influx of users in the past month.

The concept of Houseparty is beautifully simple, the idea of the app coalescing around the phenomenology of living spaces such as ‘house’ and ‘room,’ seizing on our desires for intimacy, protection and privacy and drawing on the expansion of these metaphors across digital thresholds. When you log on, you are ‘in the house,’ and the app, which is synced up with your social contacts, shows you other friends of family who are also ‘in the house,’ whom you can visit and hold gatherings. A user frequenting this digital locus can seamlessly hop from party to party, contracting spatial distance to only the time that it takes for one’s video image to load into the room.

In digital media, returning “home” has an implication of returning to safety and the protection of one’s own social circle after venturing into the territories of others, the locus providing an origin point within the aforementioned infinite – precisely like a physical house. The use of the “house” metaphor is anything but new – one can simply think of the home button, which exists in a physical form (on the interface) on many devices, and also in digital space on most social media applications – and I found it curious that none of the symbols were remotely familiar to me, showing that they had been fully reduced into channels which communicate a meaning (successful symbols), from which all interpretative potential had been stripped.

The language used by the app references a singular, communal house for all users – instead of the easily-understood physical reality of each user existing in their own space being extended to the virtual space, all users enter the shared ‘house’ of the Houseparty app as soon as they open it, subverting the common, localized use of this digitized metaphor (think Facebook ‘home’ page). Here, everyone gathers together, regardless of their location in a flattened spatio-temporal plane.

The use of the communal house makes obvious that the “portal” metaphor, in which the platform serves as a connective mechanism to real distant spaces is being displaced by entirely imagined virtual spaces, in which we can gather. The speed and ease at which this is adopted seems to be symptomatic of a universal acceptance of the spatiality of digital media. Rather than communing together in imagined places and connecting real places, apps such as Houseparty mix the two together, creating an entirely new non-place that exists on the threshold between real and virtual.

The use of the house is counterintuitive, as a house implies physical demarcation, through walls. However, the groups that gather within the house are distinct social circles, creating a sort of simultaneous “togetherness” – a gathering in which visitors exist together, but entirely separate, arranging themselves in social formations in an infinite space, putting into question the language used by the platform. As we shelter in place, protected from threats out of doors, spaces of sterility and of unbounded togetherness, but also spaces which protect and reinforce the hierarchies of our groups are forged in the interiority of digital media. This interiority is nested within our houses and is held in the palms of limbs that dwell within.