To Simply 'Like': The Realities of the Facebook Society

7/28/2019 To Simply 'Like': The Realities of the Facebook Society

1/33

Running head: TO SIMPLY LIKE

To Simply Like:

The Realities behind the

Implications of the Facebook

Society

Libby Lussenhop

Michigan State University


2/33

TO SIMPLY LIKE Lussenhop 2

Introduction and Methodology

It is no coincidence that the 2010 movie The Social Network received unprecedented

ratings and international attention. Since its dramatic birth in 2003, Facebook has seized the

worlds attention and maintained it through the ambiguity of its purpose. In questioning this

purpose, however, one encounters a broad, ever-changing answer. Facebook mirrors both the

close relationships forged through mutual experience as well as the weak ties created through

numerous group assignments and coincidences; one also recognizes the similarities between the

self-image and its Facebook profile cognate. Facebook is a social network that was originally

created to simulate the relationships, interests, and structure of the social experienceso what

better way to study this culture but through the juxtaposition of the social and the social

network?

In this study I will take an objective approach to the culture of Facebook, observing

trends in the Facebook community, utilizing and unpacking key words and phrases found in the

Facebook sub-cultures, and analyzing the effect of real life on Facebook (and vice versa). To do

so, I carefully documented my every reaction and interaction within the social network, as well

as its ties to the three-dimensional world that it is presumed to mirror. I also conducted extensive

online interviews with over 150 (anonymous) Facebook users so as to observe habitual and

linguistic trends among individuals of all ages and backgrounds. Finally, I compared social

studies and theories from Margaret Finders, Thomas Hine, Malcolm Gladwell, and Manuel

Castells to the realities I faced in my everyday Facebook immersion. In synthesizing the works

of these accredited scholars with my own findings, I discovered implications within the

Facebook community that can be extrapolated to real-life society. Still, I discovered several


3/33


subtleties of Facebook that should serve as red flags to real-life society; in addition to analyzing

the benefits of Facebook, I am obligated to share its dangers.

In exposing the culture and subculture of Facebook, especially in terms of the three-

dimensional world, there are some key terms that I will identify now to prevent future confusion.

First of all, I will use the term poster to refer to one who posts, as in a Facebook user who

posts an update or comment. On a more complicated subject, I will frequently differentiate

between Facebook society and real life society. The larger question here, however, is this:

what makes Facebook different from real life? Why are the two not interchangeable? After all,

Facebook was created to mirror real social interactions and relationships. While portions of this

study will be dedicated to illustrating the differences between the two, I will use some time here

to give an overview of the separation between Facebook and real life. While real life possesses

the four cornerstones of this Facebook studythe power in relation to language and literacy, the

structure in terms of interaction, competition and standards, an influence on the individuals self

image, and morereal life does not present these cornerstones in a single visual media. While

all of the implications of the Facebook society are present in real life society, real life society

does not portray them in the straightforward, constant way that is characteristic of Facebook.

Simply put, Facebook and real life are separate entities because, although Facebook was created

to imitate real life, Facebook is limited to its concrete two dimensions online and real life is

limited to its abstract three dimensions everywhere else. Although the two are closely

intertwined, they cannot be interchanged. Throughout this study, I will expand on this concept,

referring to real life as life in three-dimensions, real society, and the like.

This study will target four key aspects of Facebook, each one found under a different

section in this response: language and literacy, structural implications, competition, and the


4/33


users self-image. I will recognize the positive and negative aspects of involvement in the social

network, especially to the extreme at which most users are immersed within it. Through this

response essay, I ask that the avid Facebook users remove their heads from the sandor the

Newsfeedand observe the social network from the objective viewpoint from which I will

write. By making the all-too-familiar Facebook unfamiliar, I hope to uncover the distortions in

the social networking mirror, illustrating that Facebook is not the innocent society that it is often

perceived to be.


5/33


I. Reading into Facebook:The Power of the Social Network in Terms of Language and Literacy

In studying the culture of Facebook, one must first study Facebook as a social

construction. Facebook is unique in that it provides each user with a fundamental structure that

can be personalized according to how the individual wishes to be portrayed. In a way, using the

Facebook community is like continuously painting an ongoing, very dynamic self-portrait. In

addition to the language found verbatim in the Facebook structure, there are also numerous

language threads found in the more abstract subculture surrounding the social network; in

conversation about Facebook, users of all ages and backgrounds have a tendency to use similar

words and phrases that are mere implications of the network. As a whole, Facebook has

dominated the connotative power of numerous words, phrases, and language threads and has

shaped the literary community at large in a way that parallels its purposes. This section will

discuss how Facebook works through and within language in order to become a prominent aspect

of real life.

Primarily, Facebook is organized into separate pages with simple titles that have come to

redefine the titles original connotations. The Wall, for example, is the users homepage,

where a visitor can view information, pictures, notes, status updates, and posts from the user and

the users friends, all displayed chronologically in two dimensions. The Wall represents the afore

mentioned fundamental structure of Facebook; just as the fundamental structure of a home or

building is comprised of walls, so the Facebook structure is made up of each and every Wall and

its connectedness to other Walls through friends networks. Also, just as a building is better

reinforced as the walls are more numerous and interconnected, so the stability of the Facebooks

functionality is determined by the number of users and by the number of connections between


6/33


users. The social network becomes increasingly indispensable as smaller networks of friends

expand and create more connections through mutual friends and shared events. The power of

Facebook is determined by the users and their reliance on Facebook to maintain their

connections and individual social networks. This is a prime example of the power of Facebook

through language; by using the word wall to refer to the individual users contribution to the

social network, the Facebook structure becomes a more concrete aspect of real life.

Another common language thread is not one found explicitly in the structure of

Facebook, but rather in the culture surrounding the Facebook construction: Facebook stalking

or creeping. Revolutionizing the once negative connotations of this verb, the Facebook

community has turned stalking into a harmless, recreational activity in which one follows the

posts of a specific individual for any duration of time. Rather than implying danger or

discomfort, a Facebook stalker is merely one that takes the time to absorb the information that a

user has injected into the Facebook community. To have numerous stalkers is, in fact, regarded

as highly as being the most popular student at school, but in a two-dimensional, Facebook-

literature way. The only way to know if one is being stalked is by confession of the stalker,

since the Facebook lacks a dependable way to track page hits and hit sources to the personal

Wall. Therefore, to be a Facebook stalker is often regarded as a positive, even comical title,

and Facebook users will even compete for the attention ofstalkers. While the alteration of this

single word may appear harmless, Facebook represents the threat of communal desensitization to

real social issues. Facebook allows for the mass distribution of information, regardless of its

relevance to the target community; therefore, the target community possesses a resulting skewed

perspective of a social concern, sending said concern into a downward spiral of irrelevance and

insensitivity.


7/33


Similarly, Facebook language has found its way from the constrictions of cyberspace into

everyday conversation in other ways as well. A romantic relationship must be made Facebook

official in order for it to be of genuine intentions. Facebook users will often refer to aspects of

real life with thephrase I am a fan, abutton-click function presented on Facebook pages

designated for popular culture (celebrities, consumer products, television). As a result of the

communal obsession with Facebook, chatspeak or text lingo has become prevalent in real

life in addition to being the dominating literary factor within the social network. Abbreviations

and acronyms found in Facebook messages, posts, and chat often bleed into verbal

conversationand, alarmingly, even prose written by students, from written notes to

schoolwork. One can walk down the hall of any high school and hear BTW (By the Way),

JK (just kidding), or the unforgettable LOL (laugh out loud). Indeed, Facebook and the real

world have become so interconnected that the abbreviation IRL (In Real Life) is found

frequently in the social network so as to roughly differentiate two worlds that are indubitably

intertwined.

While the interconnectivity between the social network and the real world may be

reassuringin that Facebook reflects real life and functions as a supplement to face timeit is

disconcerting to recognize the power that Facebook has demonstrated in redefining aspects of the

English language. However, the power of Facebook in language should be relatively

unsurprising due to the very function of language in the social network. On Facebook, literacy

is constructed as a social event (Finders, 1997, p. 54); language serves as a means to the end of

maintaining social operation. In the words of Margaret Finders (1997), literaciesboth

sanctioned literacies and literate underlifeserved to maintain particular social roles and

document particular allegiances (p. 41). In this statement, Finders is discussing the power of


8/33


language and literacy use amidst junior high girls. In this sense, language is what is written,

while literacy is the presence of writing itself as it appears within the community. Finders

expands her description of literacy in the lives of the girls.

In all of the literate underlife, there existed a tremendous sense of play. Embedded

within the play, the social queens used literacies for the following purposes: establishing

a set of agreed-upon norms, competing for social status, connecting within a community,

staking a claim, and defying authority. Clearly many literate behaviors supported more

than one function, but all focused on the social aspects. Literate underlife, those literate

practices that occur away from and in resistance to the institution of schooling, became a

useful tool to mark status and document one as an insider in this group. Likewise, literate

underlife was carefully monitored to keep outsiders out of the circle of friends (Finders,

1997, p. 54-55).

This passage serves not only to describe literate practices among junior high girls, but it also

documents the motivations and purposes behind literacy in the Facebook community. The act of

writing is as meaningful as what is written. Although the literacy and language in both

communities is oriented around colloquial interaction, the very location and timing of the writing

serves to maintain the social structure within Facebook, as well as the social structure that

Facebook exists to reflect.

Also, the ability to delay ones response contributes to both the placement and content of

language in the social network. In a phone or face-to-face conversation, there is an expectation to

respond within a brief period of time that is comfortable for all parties involved. Mere seconds


9/33


pass between exchanges. On the other hand, the capability to revise a post before sharing it

implies a great deal of confidence and sincerity, regardless of whether or not any time was taken

to revise said post. Thus, each word is more significant on Facebook for three main reasons:

Facebook structure means that the post will exist forever, what was said in the post received

more prior thought than a spoken statement, and the location of the post implies a target audience

or friend circle. Language and literacy within Facebook, therefore, cause a juxtaposition of the

power of prose with the interaction of casual conversation, all within a context of calculated

exchange. The problems that arise within the social network stem from a lack of understanding

that those three aspects are interconnected and inseparable; if one disregards the power, the

interaction, or the context of Facebook language and literacy, the intent of the post can be

misinterpreted, and the potentially positive effect of Facebook on our linguistic society is

distorted beyond recognition.


10/33


II. The Facebook Framework:How Structure has made the Social Network Indispensable

In Malcolm Gladwells The Tipping Point(2000), the author describes social epidemics

(p. 10) and the factorsor agents of change (p. 19)that result in a prominent societal trend.

As Gladwell defines social epidemic over the course ofThe Tipping Point, a social epidemic

refers to any trend that spreads through society and remains prevalent in society for an extended

period of timenot unlike a contagious disease. The first factor is called The Law of the Few

(p. 19), which essentially states that certain people are more valuable than others in relation to a

social epidemic. Different skills are required depending on the trend, but those who possess the

desired skills cause the social epidemic to explode within communities and make the social

epidemic incurable, in a sense. In the case of Facebook as a social epidemic, the most valuable

members are those who add every user with whom they come into contact as friends, those who

update frequently, those who generate responses and likes, and those who utilize Facebooks

every aspect to its full extent. Not everyone can contribute to the Law of the Few, but

everyone is certainly affected by it. Without this small percentage of truly valuable members,

Facebook would become irrelevant and unused.

Gladwells (2000) second factor in generating a social epidemic is the Stickiness Factor

(p. 19), which describes the necessity of a social epidemic to have a meaning or concept that

sticks in the minds of the people who perceive or experience it. In other words, this is like having

a more subtle, conceptual slogan that is equally important as its designated worded slogan.

Facebook is a success because it has social stickiness factors that exceed its simple, practical

uses. For example, as was observed in section I, the language and literacy of Facebook are often

reflected in everyday conversation, leaving the voice of the Facebook community ringing in the


11/33


ears ofthe conversations participants. If Facebook did not engage members of society in such a

way that they would remember it, have an interest in it, and ultimately have a necessity for it, the

social network would not remain as successful as it has.

Thirdly, Malcolm Gladwell proposes that the final agent of change is the Power of

Context (p. 19), which describes how a change in the environment indefinitely alters the events

that take place within it. For example, Gladwell gives the example of crime in New York City.

As the city was physically cleaned upthrough graffiti removal, fixed windows, and fresh paint

and plantsthe amount of crime in the city drastically decreased. This illustrates that it is human

nature to be exquisitely sensitive tothe kinds of contextual changes that are capable of tipping

an epidemic (Gladwell, 2000, p. 29). In the case of Facebook, the environment found in real

life is paralleled to each and every page of the social network, such as the Wall of any user or the

Newsfeed. Essentially, the user manufactures a safe environment within the social network in

which to post and thrive. Since the use of Facebook requires the user to individualize a portion of

it (to some extent), the social network is highly conducive to participation; every user is provided

with a highly individualized context in which to share and from which to expand throughout the

network. Similarly, Facebook allows users to seek out contexts that give them a sense of comfort

and belonging, allowing for further networking and publicity. Facebook is, in essence, a utopian

community that provides for the needs of each and every citizen through contexts specifically

designed for the various sub-networks within it.

In overview of Gladwells three agents of change, it is evident that Facebook was

specifically designed to be an incurable social epidemic. Between a variety of expert

networkers, a flexible, impactful purpose, and a customizable construct, the social network has

become an integral part of society. Even as a skeletal structure, one can clearly recognize the


12/33


deliberate steps that the founders of Facebook took to weave the social network into the real life

society that already existedwhether this was intentional or not. The user determines his or her

activity within and in relation to the network, meaning that GladwellsLaw of the Few,

Stickiness Factor, and Power of Context are relevant to Facebook regardless of the users

individual style and preferences. The social network was structured so as to be a community that

serves every individual in equal measure, which draws new users into the community, resulting

in the Facebook social epidemic.

Furthermore, the Facebook has the advantage of simply being convenient. Users admit to

being online constantly; having the Facebook available via desktop, laptop, mobile, and iPod

makes it a priority for sharing information because the luxury is always available. The very

framework of Facebook requires that one shares information and documents everything through

ones Wall and Newsfeedso as to keep ones self-image up to date. In this manner, updates are

constantly arriving in the Newsfeeds of ones friends, providing every Facebook user with a

steady stream of new information. However, it remains to be noted that the Newsfeed is not

necessarily comprised of what was once news. Rather than receiving updates concerning major

world events and ways to improve ones way of life, Facebook users receive news made up of

their peers lunch food of choice, favorite song lyrics, or gaming requests. (Indeed, many users

Walls are entirely dominated by Farmville or Mafia Wars icons, two of the many interactive and

inter-user games presented via Facebook.) The information overload displayed by Facebook

results in a general, subtle incapability to differentiate between worthwhile, accredited news and

the offhand thought of a frienda thought that would be overlooked in face-to-face conversation

or in a phone call. Facebook allows users to personalize the network, but it also gives the average

member of society the means to document his or her every thought and action, regardless of its


13/33


magnitude or relevance to the community. Facebook also allows for news of genuine importance

to be recorded, however, and the result is the unfortunate juxtaposition of valid information and

useless gabble. In this way, the structure of Facebook is so all-encompassing that it often creates

a disregard for valuable information of global interest because it is presented next to useless

information of personal interest.

Even when analyzed only in the structural sense, Facebook has social implications that

influence the overall use of the interface. As stated by a Facebook user, it is a visual reassurance

of ones place in society. Truly, Facebook is a carefully constructed social hierarchy in which

the number of reigning powers is potentially infinite, and their roles in the social hierarchy are

entirely undefined. To use the Facebook jargon, the hierarchy is determined by general

likeability, which will be further discussed in section III under the topic of competitive social

networking. Through the structure of the Newsfeed, the comment capability, and the like, the

social network creates a very prominent depiction ofsocietys preference for particular users.

Additionally, the Newsfeed is programmed to show ones favorite friends posts before the

rest. For example, of my 1400 Facebook friends, I see the updates of only 50 to 100 friends.

Thus, I will comment and like more posts of these friends, resulting in a continued Newsfeed

preference for those same friendstherefore, my Newsfeed continues to show only these

friends. As a byproduct of the smart Newsfeed, Facebook almost chooses my friends for me.

Unless I specifically visit a different friends Wall to comment on a post, that person may

become entirely forgotten in my Facebook community. The smart Newsfeed is one of the most

prominent methods incorporated into the Facebook structure to determine relations between

users, although it appears to be nothing more malignant than an ingenious programming concept.


14/33


Additionally, the structure of Facebook has a sizeable impact on both communication and

relationships. Even with the friend-organizing function, the social network is notorious for the

blurring of the boundary between friend and acquaintance, as stated by a critical Facebook

user. While one can place Facebook friends in different categories such as family orschool,

Facebook lacks the capability to differentiate between actual context- and emotion-driven types

of relationships. The social network links every user with the same, infinite spool of yarn

when, in reality, some relationships merit a standalone steel cable while still others require

nothing stronger than tooth floss. The skewed, robotic system of systematically linking people

together results in a similar social structure in the three-dimensional world, in which the strength

of relationships is approached in a logical manner rather than in a way that is reflective of

genuine social context. As a result of social networking, relationships are based on the mental

tallying of interactions.

As a byproduct of these robotic relationships, the structure of Facebook has automated

communication. Efficiency (as noted in section III) is most desirable; conversation is a means to

an end; much interaction has a mock-serious, impersonal tonality that is appreciated both

comically and sincerely. By Facebooks creation of an efficient means of communication, it has

also presented a mass-production style of connection with other users. Through this objective,

mundane style of conversing, communication via Facebook has assisted in the blurring of the

boundary between different types of friends. Impersonal communication leads to robotic

interaction, which directly corresponds with relationships founded on frequency of Wall posts

and not genuine emotional ties.

An addition to the automated communication style within the Facebook community is the

like, which is a simple option given under every post to each and every friend of the poster


15/33


one may press the like button if one has nothing to add to the post, or ignore the post

altogether. There is also a like function for every comment added to any post, so that one has

the option of liking a comment if the post itself is not to ones liking. The like button is a

powerful factor in the success of Facebookin maintaining the strength of weak ties (Gladwell),

because with a single like, one projects his or her name onto the posters Wall and under the

radar of fellow likers of the post, and makes him- or herself visible to the posters friends. In a

split second, the liker has made him- or her-self exposed to hundreds, or even thousands of

individuals with a single like. It is an effortless means to creating and reinforcing bonds within

a community that is distant by nature. Where one would normally leave a brief message in order

to stay in touch, participants in the Facebook community need only press a button to perpetuate

communicationor so it would seem to the user. What Facebook users forget is the benefit of

losing efficiency for the sake of clarity and sincerity. As the like and other Facebook

communication methods continuously expand into the three-dimensional world of interaction,

the substance and thought behind communication continues to decline.

The danger presented by the structure of Facebookis the users growing disability to

separate Facebook structure from real societal structure. A common language thread among

Facebook users is a reliance or dependence on the social network. The Facebook interface

was designed so as to be user-friendly and useful for every individual, and is continuously

updated with the goal of remaining so. However, it is evident that the discussed structural

implications of the network have become the users only means of making sense of real society.

Facebook users demonstrate a desire to categorize every aspect of society, from friends to events

to status updates. The challenge of every Facebook user who wishes to fully experience life in


16/33


three dimensions should be to exist without categories; through a detour from the organized

tendencies of Facebook, one can determine ones own social role and context.


17/33


III. The Facebook Celebrity:Viewing Social Networking through a Competitive Lens

In his bookconcerning societys urge to shop, I Want That! How We All Became

Shoppers, Thomas Hine (2002) analyzed the relationship between shopping and human

psychology. He portrayed the natural process of trading currency for goods as being comparable

to sexual activity, especially in reference to competition. Hines describes this theory thusly:

Indeed, shopping has a lot in common with sex: Just about everybody does it. Some

people brag about how well they do it. Some keep it a secret. Most people worry, at least

a little, about whether they do it right. And both sex and shopping provide ample

opportunities to make really foolish choices. Some shopping is, like sex, an effort to

fulfill fundamental biological needs. But shopping, like sex, is often playful, though the

play is very serious. In sexual relationships we learn about ourselves in relationship to

another person. In shopping, we define ourselves through our relationships to things and

to the meanings that our society attributes to them (Hines, 2002, p. ix).

Throughout this analysis, one could very easily replace shopping with Facebook and

the theory would still be extremely applicable. There are those who are more talented at

networking than othersin reference to the Law of the Few fromGladwells (2000) strength

of weak ties from section II. Facebook users often compete for recognition as one of the Few

in the Facebook social epidemic. For some Facebook users, it is used as a highly publicized

outlet, while others maintain their Wall in modest silence out of self-consciousnessbe it in

respect to the competitive wittiness of ones updatesor the versatility of ones posts. As far as


18/33


foolish choices are concerned, both Facebook and sex can have inescapable repercussions,

should one conduct oneself in a way that is less than appropriate in any given context. On

Facebook, it may be a thoughtlessly rude comment or an angry status update, carelessly cast into

cyberspace in a moment of weaknessor perhaps in a moment of competitive haste to out-do a

fellow user. In respect to biological needs, every human being certainly craves attention from

others, and Facebook is a means to fulfill this necessityalthough Facebook is more of a means

to demonstrate how much attention a user receives. While an attention craving is not altogether

analogous to the biological need to reproduce, there is still a sense of urgency about receiving

notice (or notifications, to use Facebook terminology) from a fellow being, because with notice

comes status. The following section, however, exists chiefly to target the remainder of the

passage: the idea of serious play, the relationships that stem from this play, and the meaning

constructed around the interactions regarded as harmless to the untrained eye that can all be

traced back to the fundamental aspect of competition in the Facebook community.

In respect to social function, Facebook is a venerable vessel for competition. As stated by

Manuel Castells (2010) in his composition entitled The Power of Identity, one could explain

Facebooks structure in our competitive society thusly: In simple terms, identities organize the

meaning, while roles organize the functions (p. 7). This explanation encompasses the

construction of the social hierarchy within the Facebook community, especially in terms of

inclusion and exclusion. Individuals contribute to the definition of Facebookwho is a member

and what is postedbut the role of each member in the network determines why the network is

used by different levels of the social hierarchy. The amount and variety of posting, the number of

friends, the frequency of updates, and the overall likeability of a user generally determines his

or her role in the Facebook hierarchy.


19/33


Frequent posters and updaters are generally accepted in the social network at large, free

to post wherever, whenever. Therefore, users are constantly competing for this invincible status,

in which style and placement of ones posts are overshadowed by the users superior place

within the Facebook social hierarchy. In reference to style and placement of a post, users will

admit that it is occasionally not socially acceptable to write on a certain persons Wall, or to

send a friend request to a certain user. This social acceptance, or a lack thereof, is generally a

byproduct of face-to-face interaction; the more one interacts with a person in real life, the more

appropriate it is to Facebook that person. However, it is not necessarily advisable to, for

example, post a joke on the Wall of a classmate with whom you have had classes over the past

decade, unless it is a joke that you specifically have in common with that person. In the chatter

composing the spoken sub-culture of Facebook, out-of-place posts are discussed with disdain

and the poster is regarded as being less than a functional member of society. In the act of

writing, students inadvertently may mark themselves as outsiders by writing a message judged

inappropriate by others (Finders, 1997, p. 44). Users constantly fight the looming threat of

becoming an outsider due to a deviation from the social expectations of the user in reference to

Facebook. The social network requires users to be completely dependent on fellow users for

acceptance and reciprocation, and are subliminally excluded from the community if they do not

meet social standards.

Therefore, the competitive element within the Facebook network revolves around

sustaining a level of likeability that is high enough to excuse one from worrying about the

appropriate wording, placement, and timing of a post. As the likeability of any user is

determined by fellow userswho are all attempting to outdo the likeability of any other user

as welleach comment and likepossesses a heavy weight on the scale oflikeability. The


20/33


omnipresent spirit of competition results in a diminished frequency ofliking while

simultaneously lending great power to the likes that do appear on a post. The like, in

addition to being a structural function of Facebook (as described in section II), is a clear means

of illustrating who is in support of whom when it comes to climbing the social ladder of the

network.

To expand on the support between users, Margaret Finders discusses a similar

conundrum in respect to yearbook signing among junior high girls. Allegiances became visible

in both the act of writing and in the messages themselves. What is written and to whom is

controlled by ones social status (Finders, 1997, p. 43). The allegiances on Facebook are not

determined by who is friends with whom, but rather the individuals who conduct reciprocal

interactions. The more back-and-forth discourse between individuals, the more apparent their

allegiancejust like in real life. Also, different styles of writing are appropriate for different

tiers of the Facebook structure, and if the dialect rule is broken, the speaker is shunned from the

Facebook society. The dialect rule refers to the length of a post, the level of spelling and

grammatical correctness, and the mood or tonality of a post in any given context. There is an

expected informal, brief dialect between best friends, and a more formal interaction between

classmates posting about a group project, for example. These expectations cannot be altered by a

single person or that one person is excluded from likeability status. Making other users

uncomfortable through a change in habit is not the way to compete for the attention of Facebook

users that regard the social network as a predictable space. In this sense, the allegiances in the

Facebook network are demonstrated and perpetuated in similar ways to real lifein reciprocal

conversation and a similar style of communicatingand, therefore, the allegiances of Facebook

are most likely the most honest representation of real society in the context of Facebook.


21/33


However, the element of competition is incalculably more prevalent in Facebook, in that the user

strives to maintain numerous allegiances, and strives just as enthusiastically to make these

allegiances apparent.

Within the Facebook society, there is also a mutual expectation that updates and posts

should be witty in some respect; if not witty and casual, a post must have tremendous meaning,

and any update that falls in between witty and meaningful is ignored or attacked. In observing

the yearbook signing habits of junior high girls, Finders (1997) noted that if one believed she

was not savvy enough to create an appropriate text or powerful enough to forgo judgment,

often, out of fear of marking oneself as an outsider, one just scribbled safe messages such as

Have a good summer or See ya next year (p. 44). While this junior high trend may sound

familiar, it is alarming in that Facebook solicits a remarkably similar response from each and

every user. The safe message on Facebook is pressing the like button, or perhaps posting a

generic, simply likeable status about the enjoyable weather or a deliberately irritating

television persona. Users are encouraged to be competitive in wit and meaning, because these

two factors directly correlate with the likeability of the usera significant likeability being

the ultimate goal of every Facebook user.

Due to this additional social expectation, cyber-bullying emerges through Facebook

and creates a tense atmosphere of inclusion, exclusion, and forced conformity. On the subject of

yearbooks among junior high girls, Margaret Finders (1997) makes another observation that may

be interpreted in terms of the social network of Facebook as well: Unknowingly, some are

allowed to speak while others are silenced, some to write while others are written upon

(Finders, 1997, p. 47). A clever status update may be invaded by users that disagree with the

context of the update as opposed to the update itselfin other words, a status may lose any


22/33


likeability because the user that posted it may not have any likeability in the first place. In

contrast, an entirely average update may receive extensive positive attention because the higher a

users likeability level, the more users want to be associated with that user. Thus, cyber-

bullying is a means of including and excluding oneself and others for the express purpose of

heightening ones perceived social standing.

Modern society is known for hiding behind a screen, but none of this hiding is quite so

cowardly as Facebook cyber-bullying. The most prominent element of cyber-bullying is the

power in the delay. There is a great sense of security in the knowledge that one can wait for the

most impactful response to arrive in the mind, ready to be transferred through the keyboard to

the Newsfeed of countless Facebook users. When the battling posts, comments, and comebacks

appear in the Newsfeed, however, fellow users do not witness the time spent thinking of what to

sayall that is visible is the quality and effect of the response. A scatterbrained insulter may

appear eloquent and scathing online, an illusion that serves the dual purpose of bullying the

victim into retreat and boosting the insulters ego. This results in an endless cycle in which users

are continually silenced while abusers cultivate greater and greater opinions of themselves, until

the number of users that are allowed to post updates has been severely depleted. In terms of

competition, cyber-bullying is a method of eliminating the competition; since it cannot be

prevented or even slowed, it is one of the most prominent trends both within the Facebook

community and in the Facebook subculture.

As a general rule, Facebook use inspires competitioncompetition that too frequently

evolves into interactions that benefit very few users. Every Facebook user is running the same

race with a common finish linethe finish line being the highest level of likeability and the

race being the networking skills required to reach it. As a society that is founded on mutual


23/33


obligation to one another for success, the Facebook community should be an encouraging and

polite one, but this is clearly not the case. Users depend on one another for social status within

the social network, but the prominence of cyber-bullying has severely diminished the level of

trust within the community. Ideally, Facebook would develop a sense of healthy competition or a

complete lack thereof, in which the social expectation is solely that users respect one another as

members of a society with a common goal: the sharing of thoughts and information.


24/33


IV. The Facebook Funhouse Mirror:How the Individual is Portrayed in the Social Network

In a mental health study concerning teenagers and the growing Facebook obsession,

researchers recognized the risk of depression among users due to the skewed view (Tanner

2011) of the community offered by the social network. The author of the research article,

Lindsey Tanner (2011), describes the key problem thusly: Online, there's no way to see facial

expressions or read body language that provide context. Through the research, psychologists

discovered the powerful impact of Facebook on the self-image of the user. There is an acute

awareness of ones number of friends, the amount of interaction with those friends, and ones

own likeability. The question that emerges from the topic of Facebook and self-image is not

whether or not Facebook influences the users perceptions of the self,but how the social network

has managed to instill itself as a societal mirror within individualsregardless of the

individuals recognition of this installment.

Primarily, one must recognize that the user, in creating a Facebook account, is essentially

constructing a counterpart persona that lives, breathes, and grows within the social network.

However, unlike the real world, Facebookoffers a readymade template forthe creation of this

online alter ego; while there is comparison between individuals in the real world, Facebook

makes the ability to compare individuals infinitely more straightforward. The template offers

the same information of every member: education, work, family, birthday, photos, and a list of

friends, among a few other informational pages. In the words of Castells (2010) concerning

social networking and identity:

It is easy to agree on the fact that, from a sociological perspective, all identities are

constructed. The real issue is how, from what, by whom, and for what. The construction


25/33


of identities uses building materials from history, from geography, from biology, from

productive and reproductive institutions, from collective memory and from personal

fantasies, from power apparatuses and religious revelations. But individuals, social

groups, and societies process all these materials, and rearrange their meaning, according

to social determinations and cultural projects that are rooted in their social structure, and

in their space/time framework (p. 7).

In the words of a Facebook frequenter, Facebookshapes identity through connection. The

individual is perceived based on who he or she knows instead of based on who he or she is. Each

user can only modify the foundation from which every user creates an identity. Because of the

template from which every membercreates an identityalong with the endless lists of friends,

mutual friends, and relationship statusesthere is truly no conceivable way to exist as a

standalone member of the Facebook community. This means that the individual perceives him-or

herself in the context of othersand, if we adhere to the discussion concerning competition in

section III, the individuals object of comparison is an intensely competitive community that

portrays itself at its highest point of cleverness and general success. Thus, link between

Facebook and depression is fortified; the individual places him- or herself, in full awareness of

his or her flaws, next to the romanticized lives of competitive Facebook personas, and feels less

than adequate by comparison.Castells (2010), in synchronization with Gladwells (2000) Power of Context, states:

How, and by whom, different types of identities are constructed, and with what outcomes,

cannot be addressed in general, abstract terms: it is a matter of social contextThus, our

discussion must refer to a specific context, the rise of the network society (p. 7). Indeed, not

only are social identities constructed through the social network, but the very prevalence of


26/33


social networking in modern society determines the extent to which the internet persona invades

the three-dimensional persona. Due to the level of importance placed on Facebook as a utility

and oftentimes as a necessitythe self-image of the user is shaped largely by the image

projected by Facebook. However, the real danger emerges when the Facebook user forgets that

he or she does not create the Facebook persona from scratch, but modifies the default persona

that lies within every Facebook persona, regardless of time, place, or preference. When the

Facebook user begins to view him- or herself in terms of the Facebook alter ego, the individual

recognizes the fundamental similarities between Facebook personas in the entire community and

feels insignificant. The structural conformity of Facebook may lead the user to lose his or her

sense of individuality.

In her ethnography analyzing literacy among junior high girls, Margaret Finders (1997)

writes the following about yearbook signing: Messages were borrowed, erased, and scribbled

over to present a particular kind of self as well as to document and deny allegiances (Finders,

1997, p. 41). This truly represents the identity shaped by Facebook. Users borrow thoughts from

other users and sources, delete posts, comments, and photos, and comment endlessly on a point

of interest. Not only do these actions contribute to the individualization of the social network, but

this also defines the user based on his or her sources, interests, and conversational partners. The

scribblingover of the junior high yearbook is reproduced within the Facebook Profile, as users

scribble over the monotonous structure and impersonal operations of the social network.

However, it is crucial that the user recognizes that the scribbled over structure is still present

underneath the Profile of each and every user, and true individualization is impossible.

In conjunction with section I, it is crucial to analyze the connotations and implications of

the Facebook Profile when determining the impact of Facebook on the individualand vice


27/33


versa. Merriam-Webster (2008) defines a profile as a representation of something in outline.

The fact that the individual on Facebook is defined by his or her Profile is reflective of the idea

that the Profile is an incomplete representation of the individual it is expected to define. Thus,

the individual Facebook useris outlined in terms of the Profile and is perceived by others in

terms of this silhouette.

The main reason that the Facebook Profile acts solely as a silhouette is due to the actions

of the individual; the social network is generally utilized as a means to convey the extremities of

ones life. Of course, extreme in the context of Facebook is not necessarily extreme in the

context of real life. The Facebook extreme is anything that snags the attention of other users in

terms of likeability, be it a clever comment or a strange coincidence. Generally, status updates

and posts are used to draw attention to something specific, such as a witty thought or an exciting

occurrence. Every human being has thousands of thoughts every daymost of them mundane

and unappealingbut only a few of these thoughts will be documented on Facebook, and those

documented thoughts will no doubt be the very cleverest. Accordingly, the public perception of

any one user is based solely on his or her most intelligent thoughts and the most interesting

aspects of his or her lifestyle. This is the key instigator of depressed emotions among Facebook

addicts, and this is the main reason that Facebook does not provide a useful reflection of the

user; rather, the social network illustrates a funhouse effect, in which the user is exaggerated in

some ways and forcibly shrunk in others.

The shrinking effect of the Facebook funhouse mirror is evident through censorship

of the user; while Facebook users are free to express themselves to an extent, it is society that

suggests what should be left out of the social networks discourse. Facebook users call this

censoring a filter, and oftentimes refer to fellow users based on their concept and utilization of


28/33


this filter. Just as there are aspects of the self that are not shared in the real world public, so

there are expectations to omit aspects of the self from the Facebook public. However, while real

society asks for censorship for the sake of personal modesty, Facebook requests censorship for

the sake of public appreciation. Participants in the social network are expected to filter out

those updates and comments that wont please the Facebook community in some way. Thus,

individuals within the Facebook community find themselves defined by this expectation to

filter, seeing as this expectation forces them to alter their portrayals of themselvesthat is, if

they wish to remain at a respectable level in the Facebook hierarchy. The Facebook community

sets standards, and users are expected to change themselves so as to fit these standards; if the

user internalizes this altered self, the self-image of the user in real life is altered accordingly.

Furthermore, no Facebook user is exempt from the laws of the social network due to

equality of exposition. To use the language of Facebook, it is impossible to keep a low profile

when it comes to the social network. Beyond privacy settings, every user displays the same type

of information at a similar frequency and with a similar degree of publicity among his or her

friends. This displays yet another tool of assimilation among Facebook users; in the three-

dimensional society, different individuals have a different presence in a group, inspiring various

dynamics across different social contexts. This is eliminated from Facebook, however, due to the

template from which every user constructs a more personal identity. For example, real-life

social dynamics in individuals can be placed on a spectrum ranging from painfully shy to

exceedingly outspoken, and every aspect of this spectrum is accompanied by appropriate body

language and the individuals function in an interaction. In the Facebook society, shyness and

outspokenness can only be differentiated from one another by frequency of postingwhich

generally does not differ noticeably across personality types due to social expectations of


29/33


postersand the body language and personal style of interaction are removed from the online

society. As long as individuals heed the unspoken, unwritten laws of Facebook maintenance,

every Facebook persona has the same demeanor when it comes to the online social dynamic.

In short, the real danger of Facebooks influence on personal identity comes from the

individuals credence in the social expectations of the social network. Truthfully, identities can

also be originated from dominant institutions, they become identities only when and if social

actors internalize them, and construct their meaning around this internalization (Castells, 2010,

p.7). To take the laws of the Facebook community as the laws unto ones life is to welcome

assimilation into a congregation made up of entirely different personalities. On the other hand, it

is undeniable that Facebook provides an inescapable template from which all Facebook

personas develop, meaning that regardless of ones resistance to the social expectations of

Facebook, one cannot escape the conformity that is implied in the very architecture of Facebook.

The safest solution to the issue of identity in Facebook, therefore, is to separate the two selves:

the actual self and the Facebook self. In doing so, one eliminates the chance that the Facebook

personaconformed by natureshould contaminate the true individual that legitimately

participates in the real world.


30/33


Conclusion: Reflection

To analyze the culture of Facebook is to study a global community that is constantly

evolving and becoming something new. I chose to study the Facebook community because, as a

college student, I have learned that Facebook is almost always the primary means for

communication, event planning, and distraction. My interest in Facebook is perpetuated by its

prevalence in my own social circles, both online and in person. In tackling the implications of

Facebook in terms of real life, I was able to separate two-dimensional Facebook from three-

dimensional society and recognize how they influence one another.

What I did not get the chance to unpack, however, were other forms of communication,

especially texting, phone conversations, Skype, and similar methods of communication that are

irreplaceable in modern life. Despite the absence of analyses of other communication styles, I am

pleased with the outcome of this study. In discussing Facebook and social reality as two

independent, yet interconnected social constructions, I discovered aspects of the social network

that I either overlooked or chose to ignore previously. As the writing of the paper progressed, I

continued to learn about the social network in which I have been grossly involved for years, but

never really observed with a close and critical eye. I discovered its subtleties and can now

recognize why Facebook has become such a prominent social trend. Due to its very structure

alone, Facebook has become indispensable in society to an almost alarming extent.

If I was to expand this paper or start from the beginning again, I would conduct fewer,

more extensive interviews so as to gather key words and phrases about the social network, but

also to delve deep into individual users thoughts concerning Facebook. I had approximately 150

users responses to the same questions, and was able to find linguistic trends due to sheer

numbers, but it may have been more beneficial to explicitly ask Facebook users specific


31/33


questions concerning the four cornerstones of this study in order to grasp the individuals

perceptions of language, literacy, Facebook structure, competition, and the social networking

self-image. Had I asked more deliberate questions, I could have discussed each cornerstone both

based on what individual users said about the cornerstones, but also through the trends found in

the responses from users as a group. This would have resulted in a more in-depth description of

each cornerstone in this response to the realities of Facebook.

Additionally, the structure of this study was a challenge on its own; seeing as Facebook is

successful in part due to its multifaceted nature, it was difficult to find controlling concepts that

werent deeply intertwined with other concepts. I chose to separate my findings into the four

cornerstoneslanguage and literacy, structure, competition, and self-imagebecause I believe

they represent different aspects of the society. Language and literacy function as the abstract

subculture surrounding the network; in contrast, Facebook structure offers a concrete method to

study the social networks ties to real life; competition highlights user-to-user interaction; the

self-image section represents the introspective part of Facebook, to counteract the

interdependency (or the lack thereof) found in Facebook competition. Overall, my organization

of Facebook-related topics seemed to fit with the overall theme of comparing Facebook society

to real life society, because each section offered ties to real life.

The study of Facebook culture, as a whole, merits more time and explanation than any

work I could offer in a fragment of one semester. One could publish a novel solely describing

one of my four Facebook cornerstones, especially since all four cornerstones are so deeply

intertwined that one could describe all of them while attempting to discuss a single one (which

may have happened periodically throughout the paper). The greater message in this study, to

make an overwhelming topic more manageable, is that Facebook and real life are irreversibly


32/33


interdependentyet they are indubitably so different from one another that they should not be

utilized as representations for one another. Upon approaching Facebook and its many aspects,

the key lesson is to check the power of Facebook in real life society, and to assure that Facebook

is no more than a supplement to ones three-dimensional existence.


33/33


References

Castells, M. (2010). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Finders, M. (1997).Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York: Sage

Publications.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point; How little things can make a big difference. New York:

Little, Brown and Company.

Hine, T. (2002).I want that: How we all became shoppers. New York: HarperCollins.

Tanner, L. (2011, March 29). Docs warn about teens and 'facebook depression' . The Associated

Press.

profile. 2008. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved April 26, 2011 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profile

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	libby-lussenhop
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

To Simply 'Like': The Realities of the Facebook Society

Documents