With more than 150 million active users, it is easy to identify why a site like facebook.com serves as an emerging tool with which sociologists do their research. As these millions of users log an average of 3 billion minutes daily, professors at universities around the world use this resource to identify a variety of elements of modern culture and social dynamics. What began as a fun entertaining way to connect to fellow college-aged students has sprung to include businesses and organizations around the world. Due to the relative openness of the internet, researchers have been able to harness the power of facebook and transform it into such an incredible social experiment. The question becomes, does the “cultural taste” of today’s youth govern our friendships, or is it our friendships that affect the way we dress, what music and movies we enjoy, and what kinds of people we associate ourselves with? In other words, as Harvard sociology professor Jason Kaufman stated: “Do birds of a feather flock together, or do you become more like your friends?” An important discrepancy to make here is whether or not facebook serves as a mere personal directory or an influential means of communication. An argument for the effect of facebook on one’s taste in music for example, must account for the notion that facebook friends can readily share music and other hyperlinks that can rapidly become popular taste and culture. One particular element of facebook called the “news-feed” serves to list the recent facebook-activity of all of one’s friends upon login. This concept has been identified as “ambient-awareness” for which users are gradually bombarded with seemingly insignificant updates on their friends that, over time, accumulate into a base of social knowledge of each other’s (logged) ongoings. Is this form of “ambient-intimacy” stimulative to the well-being of a community? Are social relationships somehow improved by this interpersonal network of people that may be only remotely associated with one another?
As facebook users emerge as the in-group in internet society (with 30+ year olds as the most rapidly growing demographic of users), their participation in the phenomenon affects group conformity as it simultaneously allows us to study it. Elements of group dynamics currently being researched include theories regarding relationships, identity and self-esteem, popularity, insecurity, collective action, and political activism. The correlation between the number of one’s “facebook friends” and their level of insecurity has already been correlated. This element of weak-ties in the facebook population is very much prevalent, as well as useful in that it consolidates information for researchers by shrinking gaps in the real-world network between subjects. Subjects of such research are largely unaware of its occurrence, which brings up the question of the ethical nature of obtaining the information that may be used.
Further Reading:
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/style/17facebook.html?pagewanted=1&sq=facebook&st=cse&scp=9
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=358399
7 Comments
February 3, 2009 at 11:15 am
One of the questions that I found most interesting in your post was whether Facebook serves as a “mere personal directory or an influential means of communication.” I believe that we should focus on the latter to answer this question. To classify Facebook as an influential means of communication, we have to find a method in which it creates a new and unique way to bridge information gaps between people or a way it dramatically improves on existing methods.
Although Facebook provides us with a very convenient and efficient medium to send messages to our closest friends we interact with on a daily basis, its strength lies in its capitalization of the strength of weak ties and its ability to bridge structural holes. We have hundreds of Facebook friends that are at best distant acquaintances; we may have met them once at a party or know them through a friend of a good friend. The vast majority of these people voluntarily provide information about their character (i.e. likes and dislikes), events going on in their lives (parties or upcoming tests), and even their current mood. Facebook is the first tool in history that brings together this information on such a large scale. Better yet, it also presents this information in an extremely efficient manner, which allows individual users to process it quickly. It gives us access to information about our expanded social network that we would never know before. Some of it may be important; personally, I found a distant contact who works in the finance industry – after shadily messaging him, I was able to obtain information about potential employers who are hiring. This is the strength of Facebook and why it is an influential means of communication.
The question we must ask now is whether or not this is a good or bad thing. Should we be able to know all this information about people we hardly know? Some might argue that because all the information is posted voluntarily to a public forum, it is fair game for anyone to view. However, people are not aware of all the risk associated with such information sharing. Do you think there is a better way Facebook could continue to facilitate strengthening or weak ties but doing so in a safer manner?
February 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm
After reading this post about Facebook, I couldn’t help but think back to a quote from the novel Inherit the Wind. The book chronicles the struggle and trials of various characters involved in the Scopes trial of Dayton, Tennessee in 1926. When addressing the jury on the behalf of John Scopes, the defender Clarence Darrows states, “Gentlemen, progress has never been a bargain. You’ve got to pay for it. Sometimes I think there is a man behind the counter who says, ‘All right you can a have a telephone, but you have to give up privacy and the charm of distance. Mister you may conquer the skies but the birds will loose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline’”(Lawrence 59-58). Today, I find Facebook similar to the paradox Lawrence wrote almost 50 years ago. On one hand, the site certainly allows unprecedented access to friends, family, coworkers and modern culture in general. In particular, Facebook fosters weak ties among its users-something that can turn out to be especially profitable for many. Conley even states, “Weak ties provide the most opportunity” (161). However, at what point does all this available information on Facebook become too much information? I can have a thousand friends- I can know their interests, hobbies, and music choices- but how much am I really invested in them? It seems an irony that as more ways evolve for modern Americans to communicate with each other (whether it be by text, email, or cell phone) the more we seem to become distant and alienated from one another. Why must there always be an impersonal intermediate between two people? To quote the post, this “ambient-intimacy”, while helpful in keeping in touch, is in danger of coming to replace face-to-face relationships. Conley also discusses social capital, or the “general trend of civic disengagement”(163) and its subsequent rise in the past few years. Can such sites like Facebook be fostering greater estrangement from community? Why attend a community event or a group meeting when you can contact select individuals via Internet? I believe that Facebook should continue to work as the site it now is, but people will personally have to recognize, and take the initiative, to build back up social capital and personable relationships. Does any one else agree?
February 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’m kind of avoiding your question because instead I’m interested in a little phrase the above poster, probably unconsciously, wrote; “after shadily messaging him.” Some sociological experts say the fact that facebook is such a widely used and acceptable way of communicating reveals something about this new generation. It being normal that we know so much about almost complete strangers is by far a new thing. The constant news feed educates friends on the happening of everyone’s daily life. We somehow are more closely connected with a much larger network of people than previous generations ever have been before. Yes, these relations are much more casual and less intimate, but they do seem to be more abundant. If those who study such phenomena say that the sociology in which we are actually communicating have changed, I’d have to disagree. The methods, by far, have revolutionized, but the fact that it is still considered creepy to post on some person’s wall you’ve never met before still holds true. Facebook can open up worlds of possibilities. I once messaged a few people in the Vanderbilt network as a senior in high school asking them their opinions on the school. It’s almost necessary to start off such a message with a, “I know this is creepy and slightly stalker-esque, but….”
Americans still hold on to the basic values of privacy and what is or is not socially acceptable. Many users will single out another person as weird if they cross these unspoken social facebook norms. Just as it is odd to pick up a phonebook and call a random person in hopes of starting up a conversation, it’s still as shady when you comment on someone’s profile picture whom you don’t know. Unbeknownst to the adult world is seems, there is social science behind facebooking. Again, for comparison, after a date, a man may wait two or three days before calling the woman. A guy may also wait a few days before friend requesting a girl after meeting her at a party. I know it all seems stupid and even trying to describe it in writing is just as weird, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t far from the truth. What I am getting at is that even though the means in which college kids are communicating is vastly evolving, the social norms instilled into American society still matter and play out in parallel ways.
February 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I really have to disagree with 03katie. She argues that American social life is more vicarious, more distanced than in the past, and that this is categorically undesirable – ‘alienated’ is a classic sociological term of reference, btw, though different scholars define it differently. I see 03katie as claiming that contemporary Americans lack a sense of solidarity with other Americans, as well as with America more generally. Does the recent collective outpouring of social emotion regarding the Presidential Election and Inauguration confirm this statement? (What would?) Millions of Americans were literally crying — weeping and cheering and marching — at a collective, political, and even highly divisive public event.
In 03katie’s words, “as more ways evolve for modern Americans to communicate with each other (whether it be by text, email, or cell phone) the more we seem to become distant and alienated from one another.” But how do you even know that people feel ‘more distant and alienated from one another’ now than before? (Conley is wrong about the ‘decline in civic participation’ by the way — forms of civic participation have changed (texting, Facebook!) but the new ones make up for the loss of old ones. I.e. people might hold fewer rallies and sit-ins than before, but instead they have on-line meetings and wikis, e.g.)
An aside: Would you voluntarily give up your Internet in exchange for, say, membership in your great-grandfather’s Elks Lodge? How about swapping that cell phone for a single telegraph office somewhere downtown, where you get charged for messaging BY THE WORD!?
Perhaps it would be more useful to frame this as an empirical question? Do people feel noticeably ‘distant and alienated’ today (How could you collect data on this), and are they noticeably more so than in the past? Tough question to answer, though I’m sure it can be done.
I am, by the way, one of the ‘Facebook sociologists’ cited in the above post. I’m professor-friends with your professor – a real-life friendship facilitated by on-line media – and she pointed me to this post. Thanks for the props! One very difficult ramification of the Internet — another highly bloggable issue, if you ask me — is that it is both more possible to communicate your ideas with strangers (and far, far cheaper) than ever before, but at the same time it is also far harder to get your ideas noticed. I might be wrong about that, actually, but it sure feels that way. Thousands of little bits of thought and opinion, most unread by anyone… Would it be better if fewer of us had the means to write?
February 3, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I really like the idea, introduced by 03abrarahmed and advanced by 03katiecardenas, that “weak ties” (or in the case of facebook, “friends”) represent a great diversity of resources and relationships. As I discussed in the afternoon section today, a weak tie friend you think of as a “social butterfly” will get different treatment from you than one you think of as more serious or committed a friend–even if they are both just casual acquaintances.
But I think we’ve strayed away from one of the central questions posed in the study cited, and in the blog post: do your tastes promote the acquisition of certain friendships, or do your friendships promote the acquisition of certain tastes?
As with so many questions, this isn’t one we can answer–it is the dreaded “empirical question” which requires data–but we can hypothesize about social forces that would promote one over the other.
Under what conditions do you think your tastes would change to match the tastes of your friends? Under what conditions would you choose your friends based on shared cultural tastes?
If the answers to these questions seem obvious, answer them imagining that you’re going to school in a foreign country or culture. Now try comparing your answers at age 5, and age 50–are there differences? Consider your tastes for something you care little about (e.g., thread count of sheets or white v.s. yellow gold) and then consider a taste you do care about (e.g., food, music).
February 3, 2009 at 11:01 pm
If you’re leaving and studying in a foreign country, trying to fit into the society of the local people is a big issue. And it became even worse when you go to a place that has a totally opposite culture that you usually leave by, where the food never matches your taste bud and the music that they play are the ones that you never heard of. Of course, in college, you don’t want to be the loner who always eats at the cafeteria alone, you always wants to find a way to try to make friends around you. When you start to listen to the cool music that they listen to and eat the food that they like, you will have something in common to try to start a conversation and from that, the friendship grows. And by Facebook, there are lots of things you can discover about certain people. I think that people would change their taste to match the tastes of their friends if they have a particular group that they want to be friends with in mind or when they hang out long enough to that certain type of friends, people tend to conform slowly to that particular group. On the other hand, to choose friends based on shared cultural tastes is more applicable when your social circle has knowledge about the shared tastes. You certainly cannot go out to choose friend who only likes techno music when people in your society doesn’t even know about that type of music. This also does not apply when you are in a newcomer in a certain society where people don’t know about your background at all. And as you grow older, it is very hard to change the mindset that you already have since you were young. Mostly kids are more easily influence by their peers compare to adults. This is because people usually have their own opinion or taste on something based on their experience and the older you are, the more experience you will have.
However, the question that really plays in mind as I am typing this is why do people change? Is it because people does not have enough confidence to bring our true self out to the society or we just want to look cool in our social circle by jumping in the bandwagon every time?
February 11, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Even without going to school in a foreign culture, I feel that I not only monitor but also shape what information I put on facebook. Not only the information about myself that I include but also the photos tagged of me that “friends” of mine are allowed to view.
When I first filled out my facebook information, I prided myself by people being able to tell the type of person I was simply by reading my information. I included the most important interests I had and felt that anyone that read those interests would be able to understand the type of person I am.
Recently, however, I have wanted the exact opposite from people being able to so easily tell what type of person I am. Where’s the mystery if someone I’m not even friends with in real life but “friends” with on facebook can look at my profile and tell more about me simply by spending 20 minutes on my page than by reaching out and trying to get to know me. As a result of feeling this way, I hid my photos so that no one would be able to look through them except myself. Now when I think about the mystery about myself that I have added to my page, I pride myself on not feeling like I need to use facebook as a social tool to meet new people.
After all, we don’t even know who’s looking at our pages throughout the day or how frequently people visit our pages. I find that if people are truly so intrigued by my facebook page, they should want to meet me in real life, not through cyber-stalking.
What this all led me to consider was how much information we actually need to share on public sites such as facebook. While I completely agree that it is an excellent tool to use in order to keep in touch with friends and to check up on old friends, what harm could an email do that could ask for the same information in private that is being shared in public?
Have we really gone so far into giving ourselves to the world of technology that we are comprising ourselves by giving information that really, should not be learned until a fifth or sixth date. No, I do not want to see a classmate of mine doing a body shot when we have a project to finish by midnight.