“Like”
“Add
Friend”
“In a
relationship”
These phrases have taken on new, complex meanings through
the exponential growth of the online social network Facebook. With over a
billion users, it dwarfs most other online entities and has become a natural
mode of communication for people around the globe (Protalinski). It was originally
designed as a way to connect people online, and has expanded in scope and
features to the point where it is easy to incorporate into almost all facets of
life, including friendships but also recreation, business, school, and many
others. Considering that the site is supposed to be a social platform, the
question merits asking: how well does Facebook address the social desires of
its users? Although
it is a novel utility for interacting with the world of people around us, the
type of compositional communication facilitated by the Facebook interface is
not able to meet the social desires of its users, because it can’t satisfy the
social values of exclusivity, presence, depth, identity, and comfort, and it
fosters envy, loneliness, and image management rather than true connection.
Public and Private Relationships
The vast amounts of information that are visible as soon as
a user logs into Facebook leave no room to doubt that Facebook is by
nature a public platform. The way that “posts” are designed to be seen by
whoever the user designates, the ability for a plethora of individuals to like
statuses that they have no personal involvement with, and the general information
that is provided on each individual’s page are all features that point toward
one of the chief designs of the site: ease of public display. Activity on
Facebook is often not just focused on a particular relationship; it is material
for a user’s online community to take in and interact with. Practically the
only aspect of Facebook that is clearly designed to be exclusively personal is
the messaging feature, but this feature isn’t a novelty. It is akin to texting
online or any other form of instant messaging. The form of publicity that
Facebook sets up is almost like a theater setting. Shakespeare once wrote that
“all the world is a stage”, but one could specify by saying that Facebook and
other online communities are stages. Jesse Rice, a church musician with a Ph.D.
in Psychology and a fascination with social dynamics, writes in his book The
Church of Facebook that, “The
hyperconnection of Facebook changes the nature of our relationships by turning
our friends into audiences and us into performers” (Rice, 112). It becomes very
easy to focus on how we are presenting ourselves rather than who another person
it; scrolling down a newsfeed is a lot like walking past a row of pedestals,
each with a snapshot of a different person’s life on it. At best it is a kind
of art gallery; at worst, a conglomeration of attention seekers. When people
are so inwardly focused, it becomes difficult to reach out to
others, and the way that Facebook structures its posting process is a method of
composition that encourages this.
Exclusivity
There isn’t an explicit problem with a public social
network, but it is not able to meet a certain social desire that most people
have: the desire for exclusivity, the desire to be considered special by
another person. This type of relationship is exemplified in the idea of
“best” friends, and especially in romantic relationships, where part of the
thrill comes from knowing that the other has your strongest affections and you
have theirs. There is nothing to make us
unique when “...most of our online connections have the same title: “friend””
(Rice, 135). This is related to the previous point about Facebook’s publicity,
because the more public and broadly directed our social interactions are, the
less personal and meaningful they become. Journalist and Senior Editor
Christine Rosen has a Ph.D. in history, is a professor at UC Berkley, and has
looked at the history and implications of social media with her practiced eye.
She admits that friendships can develop online,
“But “friendship” in these virtual spaces is thoroughly
different from real-world friendship. In its traditional sense, friendship is a
relationship which, broadly speaking, involves the sharing of mutual interests,
reciprocity, trust, and the revelation of intimate details over time and within
specific social (and cultural) contexts. Because friendship depends on mutual
revelations that are concealed from the rest of the world, it can only flourish
within the boundaries of privacy; the idea of public friendship is an oxymoron”
(Rosen as cited in The Church of Facebook, 113).
In an online world where “friends” can
post an unlimited number times in as many places and to as many people they
want, there are few ways to identify a relationship as having special
significance. When information is posted for everyone to see and conversations
sit out in the open, it is impossible to tell whether a comment would have been
worded differently had it been spoken just between two people rather than “on
stage”, taking into account the opinions and responses of others. This also
removes the concept of confidence, sharing something with just one or a few
people because of deep trust. Posting emotional content on Facebook, which
shows up in the same format as any other post for everyone to address or
ignore, is not the same as the idea of “a shoulder to cry on”, leaning on a
trusted person for emotional support. Facebook has not been designed to
facilitate this type of relationship connection.
Image Management
With the advent of online identities comes
the complication of image management. Facebook profiles do exactly what the
name implies: they profile us. It’s a sad but true concept that “Thanks to social
media, we could judge countless books by their covers” (Rice, 145). Almost all
Facebook users realize this, and whether consciously or subconsciously they
present themselves in the way that they want to be seen, whether that is 100%
honest or not. In this way Facebook encourages users to manage the way they are
seen by others, which puts the focus on narcissism rather than on
connection with another human being. Having empathy for others, the ability to comprehend and share their feelings, requires looking at life from someone else's perspective. This can't be done when all of the thought is going into one's own profile.
Even when profiles aim to be as candid as
possible, they will always fall short of the mark. The convoluted intricacies
of a real person can’t be comprehended simply from words and pictures on a
screen, which can “...emphasize only certain
aspects of people’s lives and only certain aspects of their personalities”
(Twenge, 113). It is selective representation to the extreme. Some people
prefer this mode of communication, because they feel that they can put thought
into presenting themselves as the person they really want to be, and that they
will eventually become that person. If someone prefers this type of
relationship, that is a viable decision. However, there is no guarantee that a
person will become comfortable in the identity that they have created, nor that
the other person in the relationship is truly becoming who they say they are. The relationship can
remain an interaction between two imaginary personalities rather than two real
people. They way that we design our online presence on sites like Facebook is a
form of composition, and it is unable to bring people into a true understanding
of each other.
The Downward Spiral: Envy and Loneliness
The previous concept of mass online image
management has implications for the way users see their online world. The
process of viewing the highlights of countless other lives, all in one place,
without any direct relational connection to accompany it often makes users feel
lonely and even envious. Maria Konnikova, psychologist and journalist for the
New York Times, writes about Facebook users, “We want to learn about other
people and have others learn about us—but through that very learning process we
may start to resent both others’ lives and the image of ourselves that we feel
we need to continuously maintain” (Konnikova). We can’t help but feel inferior
when confronted with a myriad of people who in their snapshots and carefully
planned statuses seem far more successful and happy than we are. The majority of
them only seem to be better than us, because we are seeing the
desirable parts of them that they choose to display on the online “stage”.
Rather than being surrounded by the reality of what we are doing in the present
with the people we love, we become increasingly disappointed that we are not a
part of the exciting things happening in the lives of others. The way that this
“look what I’m doing” communication style has been facilitated by Facebook,
whether intentional or unintentional, isn’t effective at fostering fulfilling
connections between people; it seems to create psychological barriers instead.
Searching for Identity
It is natural for people to find identity
in the things that they do, and when one of those things is Facebook, a person
can end up feeling defined by the online world that they are a part of. When we
put so much stock in the way other people’s lives are represented, “We can find
it increasingly difficult to know whether our thoughts, actions, and feelings
are our own, or whether they are simply the collective “voice” of our large
personal networks” (Rice, 145). We can even feel like we lose part of our
self-concept when these things are not present. Sherry Turkle, professor of
social studies of science at MIT, writes that, “...what is not being cultivated
is the ability to be alone, to reflect on and contain one’s emotions. The
anxiety that [people] report when they are without their cell phones or their
link to the internet may not speak so much to missing the easy sociability with
others but of missing the self that is constituted in these relationships
(Rice, 143). The vicious cycle really begins when we start thinking so much
about the various parts of our social identity that we lose focus on our
purpose outside of other people. It is tough for a friend to love someone for
who they are when that someone is so caught up in outside influences that who
they are isn’t clear. When we stay so hyperconnected, “...our always-on
tendencies prevent us from being fully present in the moment... we can come to
feel as though we’re constantly missing out on something... almost as though
we’re living an out-of-body existence” (Rice, 147). That sort of existence is
not grounded in anything solid and is as fragile as the proverbial house built
on the sand. Time spent with people will not deepen relationships if it is
preoccupied by thoughts of what else is happening and where else we could be.
The online illusion of being a part of so many people’s lives at once is not
maintainable in real life, and is propagated by the way that social networks
arrange for published content to appear before users in a never-ending stream.
Spreading Thin
The very idea of displaying a user’s
“friend count” on their home page demonstrates Facebook’s focus on expanding social
circles and gathering acquaintances. This emphasis can lead some users to have
thousands of “friends”. Can an individual’s social circle be too large? Not
necessarily, but as in many areas of life quality and quantity often have an
inverse relationship, and as Rice puts it, “The more connected we are, the more
the quality of our connections suffer” (Rice, 109). When communication is
spread thin, it can lose the sense of value that more direct and time-intensive
forms of contact have, and this brings down the significance of the
relationships. According to Rice, “Relationships require, among other
things, time. As the number of our relationships grows, the less
time we have for each one. As a result our communication events must
necessarily become more superficial” (Rice, 110). This is profound because
invested time is another variable that is tough to convey online. Posting is so
quick and effortless that it is difficult to communicate our special attention
to a relationship. However, despite these setbacks, there are ways for the
variable of time to be communicated. Two individuals can stay up for hours
“talking” on Facebook, and will both end the night knowing that the other
person cared enough to dedicate the time. With this display of commitment the relationship
will likely be strengthened, but can exchanges of text alone lead to the
relational intimacy that people desire?
Relational Intimacy
What people crave is to bathe in social depth, not dip
their toes in many social tide pools. This is supported by a study at Carnegie
Mellon University about online interactions, which “found that the more people used the Web, the lonelier and more depressed
they felt. After people went online for the first time, their sense of
happiness and social connectedness dropped, over one to two years, as a
function of how often they used the Internet” (Konnikova). “Surfing” the net
sounds exciting and adventurous, but practically ends up as “drifting” from
page to page and comment to comment without being anchored by a real relational
connection. According to Rosen, many sites are designed to function in this
way; she observes, “Today’s online
social networks are congeries of mostly weak ties — no one who lists thousands
of “friends” on [social networking sites] thinks of those people in the same
way as he does his flesh-and-blood acquaintances, for example. It is surely no
coincidence, then, that the activities social networking sites promote are
precisely the ones weak ties foster, like rumor-mongering, gossip, finding people,
and tracking the ever-shifting movements of popular culture and fad” (Rosen as
cited in The Church of Facebook, 109). The type of relationships
that social media is designed to nurture are reinforcing the type of
conversation that is conveyed on them, and vice versa. We should be under no
illusions that sites like Facebook will adapt to increase the quality of our
relationships; the social network is a positive feedback system that is
constantly working to refine the dynamics that make it more successful.
Unfortunately, pursuing intimacy with individuals may not be one of those
dynamics.
It can be noted that, in fact, intimacy is present on Facebook. Love is proclaimed and trust is indicated with blocks of text and occasional accompanying pictures. One could even argue that if any kind of intimacy can be emoted through the words of great literature or a personal letter, the same should be possible in words posted online. But does the nature of this kind of “intimacy” prove to be fulfilling in the long term on its own? Relational psychologist Joan Atwood proposes that, “Social media introduces two parallel and paradoxical elements: false intimacy and social distance. These elements contribute to the fostering of relationships that in their lack of authenticity can sometimes be at best awkward...” (Atwood, 16). Facebook, like other forms of purely text-based communication, is able to communicate extremely relational ideas (especially in the area of romance) in a way that requires no obligation or follow through. The words may lack the weightiness that accompanies the passions of a real person, just as reading a romance novel is different from speaking to a lover in person. According to Rice, “At its worst it is a form of emotional pornography – we get the brief and intense feeling of intimacy without having to worry about commitment, conflict resolution, or the time required to build a truly intimate relationship” (Rice, 205). What carefully constructed writing on Facebook can't offer are the difficulties dealt with together and the sacrifices that make intimacy become truly authentic and meaningful.
Comfort: the Power of Presence
Regardless of what can be communicated on
Facebook, one thing that it clearly cannot mediate is actual physical presence.
Users may be led to believe that they can maintain friendships without the aspect of presence; as one college student put it, “There’s no need to visit a friend to catch up when you can
just check their profile to see what’s new” (Josh as cited in The
Narcissism Epidemic, 111). Is this true? Is there a reason to seek more of
an involvement than words exchanged online? In IGods, a book about
various technologies’ roles in our lives, Craig Detweiler of Pepperdine
University writes, “The temptation on
Facebook is to offer quick answers or clichés. But how much depth can we pack
into a comment? Presence is not possible... Friends get in the car, board the
plane, and deliver dinner” (Detweiler, 151). What Detweiler is getting at is
that a certain deepness of connection can only be achieved through real,
physical action and interaction. Having someone nearby as a support or
physically trying to help solve a problem means more than words that can easily
be exchanged online; it leaves no doubt that the compassion is real and strong
enough to prompt action. As Rice keenly observed, “Our Facebook connections
typically require little thought or action on our part. We don’t have to work
hard at them, or offer much of ourselves in return” (Rice, 179). The effort is
what makes a lasting difference in people's lives, and an online interface
can’t communicate it.
Physical presence relates to another
aspect of communication between individuals that is difficult to convey online:
comfort in times of distress. Everyone has things that upset them; no one is
really “okay”, and when the emotional floodgates don’t have a real person to
crash open on they may default to a less intimate audience
such as Facebook. Regarding these situations Rice says, “Updates that beg for a
response (“Is anybody out there?” or “I’m so lonely”) linger because they ask
for a bit more than we may be used to offering via Facebook. A casual comment
does not seem sufficient to address the conflicted feelings on the other end of
the post” (Rice, 160). If someone’s problem can be fixed by a lengthy block of
encouraging text, Facebook may be sufficient. But if the problem is deep
feelings of distress without a clear solution, users may be at a loss to help
when all they have at their disposal is words. Rice also recognizes that
although some of these people may realize their need for community, they have
become so used to the online “personal bubble” or “safety cushion” that
face-to-face interaction is an unknown that seems too difficult. He writes,
“They are lonely and hurt. They don’t know why that they think community might
solve that, but when they look community in the face and realize that it means
raw, skin to skin contact with other people for whom you have become
responsible... that’s when they back away” (Rice, 177). Facebook conditions its
users to love and be loved from a distance, which can’t match the kind of
consolation that keeps loving in nonverbal ways even after all the right words
have been said. Through no fault of its own, the entirely text-based social
media site limits the communication and connection that individuals can have
through other means.
Making Conscientious Connections
All of this is
not to say that Facebook isn’t a valuable utility with its proper place in society.
Much of this analysis has zeroed in on the worst-case scenarios, but those only
become serious concerns when Facebook starts to take the place of other
expressions of relationship. Facebook
provides the invaluable ability to remain in touch with acquaintances from all
over the world. Granted, a user won’t be able to maintain close contact with
each of these people, but the link will be there just in case. There is nothing
inherently negative with Facebook as a resource. When used
conscientiously, it can even facilitate the healthy maintenance of
relationships. A recent study from Carnegie Mellon University found that, “...when people engaged in direct interaction with
others—that is, posting on walls, messaging, or “liking” something—their
feelings of bonding and general social capital increased, while their sense of
loneliness decreased” (Konnikova). When Facebook is treated as a direct,
intentional mode of communication from person to person, it can provide a
feeling of belonging. When this is paired with actual time spent together,
loyalty, and involvement, the feelings won’t simply die away when the person
logs off but will persist because of the consistency that is acknowledged.
There is also
academic support for the concept that social media connections can increase the
overall amount of communication between individuals. This can be a useful
relationship-building tool, especially with those for whom face-to-face
conversation is intimidating or awkward. Research by sociologist Manjunath
Banglore “...found that due to the availability of SNS (social networking
sites) the communication between college students and their members of family,
between college students and their friends has increased” (Banglore).
Communication is important to developing and maintaining relationships, and any
medium of communication is better than none at all. Facebook provides a degree
of separation that can make verbal communication easier, but this strategy will
feed a vicious cycle in which dependency on text-based communication causes and
is caused by an increasing inability to connect with other people in real time.
Those who desire to grow in their capacity for relationships might consider how
to approach people in the real world and make their relationships “come alive”.
So What?
All
things considered, Facebook's compositional style is not suited to facilitate
the relational communication of meaning that can fulfill the social desires of
the general population. Although it has its place in our technological society,
it must be used with caution and will be more likely to satisfy its user if it
is used as a tool to supplement face-to-face interactions rather than as a
substitute. Otherwise it will leave us scrambling for identity and connection,
and this is no authentic, fulfilling way to
live. As we have seen through this analysis, what really holds meaning for
people is “...the sense of identity and belonging that comes from a shared
history, the safety found in a sense of permanence, and the intimacy that accompanies
proximity” (Rice, 179). These things are the foundation that makes being in
relationship with people truly worthwhile, so let’s seek them where they may be
found... which probably isn’t on Facebook.
-
Christian McKinney
Annotated Bibliography
Atwood, Joan D., and Conchetta Gallo. The Effects
of the Internet on Social Relationships: Theraputic Considerations.Bloomington,
IN: Iuniverse, 2011. Print.
This
compilation of works focuses on the dynamic between online interactions and
relationship quality, particularly in the area of romantic relationships. It
includes 8 chapters, each by a different author with experience focusing on a
different aspect of the dynamic, including adolescent issues, pornography,
infidelity, and social freedom. I chose this source because it provides very
lucid analyses of the ways that that online social tools such as Facebook can
influence the way people interact with one another. The book’s discussion of
social distance and false intimacy, combined with inclusion of a variety of
outside supporting sources, made it very practical in addressing my topic.
Detweiler, Craig. IGods: How Technology Shapes Our
Spiritual and Social Lives. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2013. Print.
IGods takes a critical perspective on the effects technology,
especially the internet, on our relationships with God and with eachother. An
“iGod” is a word for any technology that becomes idol like in its dependence
and seemingly god like in its abilities, such as a search engine that can
answer almost any question in mere seconds. Each chapter discusses one category
of “iGod” and its implications. I chose to use this source because it provides
compelling arguments and examples about the communication issues in social
media, such as its inability to provide a real sense of presence. This
information is supported by personal stories and studies, and the author Craig
Detweiler is a professor of communications at Pepperdine University, which adds
ethos to his writing and support to my analysis.
Konnikova, Maria. “How Facebook Makes Us Unhappy.” The
New Yorker. Conde Nast, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
From a
news writer with a Ph.D. in psychology comes this research-based analysis of
Facebook’s negative impact on our lives. The article begins with the mysterious
data that time spent online has actually been shown to lower the mood of users,
with more time online corresponding to lower moods. Facebook in particular more
commonly arouses feelings of envy rather than social connection. The article
doesn’t leave out the other side either, including research on the positive
affects of Facebook. This article is very believable and provides a lot of
solid evidence related to my topic because it is based on the findings of
social studies rather than simply on philosophical speculation. The author does
a great job of smoothly integrating this data into a comprehensive look at the
variables of Facebook and happiness.
Rice, Jesse. The Church of Facebook: How the
Hyperconnected Are Redefining Community. Colorado Springs, CO: David C.
Cook, 2009. Print.
The
Church of Facebook starts with the human desire for community and
friendship and addresses how Facebook is well or ill designed to foster these
values. The author cites many studies supporting the human need for personal
association and focuses on several outcomes of using Facebook, including
continuous partial attention, personal overexposure, and the spontaneous
synchronization of groups. The book also discusses the nature of friendship and
surface level socialization, ending with recommendations on how to approach
Facebook in the most relationship-healthy way. I use this source as support
because it is an relatively unbiased analysis that approaches both sides of an
issue, then being able to provide a mature reader not with instructions to
avoid Facebook altogether, but rather with strategies to use it in a healthful
manner. Its subject matter directly relates to my thesis and explores concepts
such as partial attention that I might never have considered.
Twenge, Jean M., and W. Keith. Campbell. The
Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. New York: Free,
2009. Print.
This
book is based on the concern that many Americans have become overly
self-focused. It goes through several realms of society and explains how each
has contributed to this problem, including family, school, pop culture, and
social networks. I chose this book to help address my thesis because of it’s
section on how social networks such as Facebook encourage users to think
primarily about themselves and minute details of how they are portrayed. As far
as cultural criticism goes, The Narcissism Epidemic is
conscientious yet reprimanding, with well logical deductions and great outside
support for it’s main points.
Additional Sources Cited
Protalinksi, Emil. "Facebook Now Has 1.19 Billion
Monthly Active Users." TNW Network All Stories RSS. The
Next Web Inc., 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 05. May 2014
Banglore,
Manjunath S. “A Sociological Study on the Influence of Social Networking Sites
on the Interpersonal Relationships of College Students in Bangalore and Mysore
Cities of India.” International Research
Journal of Social Sciences 2.6 (2013): 12-19. International Science Congress Association. Web. 8 May 2014.
