Facebook Cannot Satisfy Us

“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.