Response: Suboptimal Usage of Facebook.com
While I applaud my counterpart for his deft fusion of academic disciplines (how post-modern of you, sir) in his analysis of Facebook.com, I must offer some qualification of his eventual conclusions. There is without doubt a dearth of Facebook photograph posting amongst our friends of the graduating class of 2005. However, I would suggest that this is more a result of the ever-progressing role of technology in human social interaction than an intrinsic flaw in Facebook's approach.
As mentioned, I was delighted to see Mr. Vermylen examining modern social issues through the lens of economic theory. Nevertheless, I believe this model ultimately falls short of a full explanation. To extend this analysis, I offer, instead, a far less innovative approach based upon Sociological theory (predictable as it may be it is a decidedly logical step, taken by one of the forefathers of economics, Adam Smith, in the 18th century). I agree that the value of a personal picture - especially one that idealizes physical features (windswept hair and a dynamic smile that tells of the thrill of Scientific research abroad), dramatizes place and circumstance (field study in Morocco) - has inflated the number of personal pictures posted. Facebook is a means of social communication in which individuals constructs an image (in words, pictures and associations) of themselves that is then presented to the community, and, naturally, digital photographs of oneself are an essential element of that construct. It is merely the newest innovation in a long history of self-serving media spin. Yet, in terms of social value, human beings inherently place a comparable value on connections to other members of that community (in what Durkheim might call a manifestation of "Collective Representations"). In the limited means offered by Facebook.com for the self-construction of image, pictures of, or with, others are often just as valuable as self-portraits.
If there is equal value (be it in social or economic terms) to the publishing of self- and group photographs, the noted discrepancy amongst the class of 2005 must lie elsewhere. I point to the emerging role of web-based technologies in social interaction. While programs like America Online Instant Messanger and Hot or Not.com (which, coincidentally, was the subject of a hilarious newspaper expose by Mr. Vermylen years ago) are relatively old and have been well-integrated into the social lives of many "modern" teens and twenty-somethings, the Facebook is quite new to the scene. Created only in February of 2004, there was hardly the time for the class of 2005 to adjust to the service let alone place it at the foundation of essential social structures and networks. If one looks to subsequent classes, this becomes less and less the case. My own brother, Connecticut College class of 2009, gives and receives "friendships," personal and public messages and, most importantly, boasts almost one-hundred pictures of himself and his friends [for the sake of journalistic integrity as well as comedic value I've included a link to his Facebook page (Peter Courtemanche Everyone), though most will be denied access]. With each entering class, for better or for worse, Facebook becomes an ever-more acceptable, if not essential, social tool. No need for subsidies, dear John, for it seems that Facebook resembles the modern world economy far more than we may like to think: for in the end all value is created by social bonds, interaction and struggle.
As mentioned, I was delighted to see Mr. Vermylen examining modern social issues through the lens of economic theory. Nevertheless, I believe this model ultimately falls short of a full explanation. To extend this analysis, I offer, instead, a far less innovative approach based upon Sociological theory (predictable as it may be it is a decidedly logical step, taken by one of the forefathers of economics, Adam Smith, in the 18th century). I agree that the value of a personal picture - especially one that idealizes physical features (windswept hair and a dynamic smile that tells of the thrill of Scientific research abroad), dramatizes place and circumstance (field study in Morocco) - has inflated the number of personal pictures posted. Facebook is a means of social communication in which individuals constructs an image (in words, pictures and associations) of themselves that is then presented to the community, and, naturally, digital photographs of oneself are an essential element of that construct. It is merely the newest innovation in a long history of self-serving media spin. Yet, in terms of social value, human beings inherently place a comparable value on connections to other members of that community (in what Durkheim might call a manifestation of "Collective Representations"). In the limited means offered by Facebook.com for the self-construction of image, pictures of, or with, others are often just as valuable as self-portraits.
If there is equal value (be it in social or economic terms) to the publishing of self- and group photographs, the noted discrepancy amongst the class of 2005 must lie elsewhere. I point to the emerging role of web-based technologies in social interaction. While programs like America Online Instant Messanger and Hot or Not.com (which, coincidentally, was the subject of a hilarious newspaper expose by Mr. Vermylen years ago) are relatively old and have been well-integrated into the social lives of many "modern" teens and twenty-somethings, the Facebook is quite new to the scene. Created only in February of 2004, there was hardly the time for the class of 2005 to adjust to the service let alone place it at the foundation of essential social structures and networks. If one looks to subsequent classes, this becomes less and less the case. My own brother, Connecticut College class of 2009, gives and receives "friendships," personal and public messages and, most importantly, boasts almost one-hundred pictures of himself and his friends [for the sake of journalistic integrity as well as comedic value I've included a link to his Facebook page (Peter Courtemanche Everyone), though most will be denied access]. With each entering class, for better or for worse, Facebook becomes an ever-more acceptable, if not essential, social tool. No need for subsidies, dear John, for it seems that Facebook resembles the modern world economy far more than we may like to think: for in the end all value is created by social bonds, interaction and struggle.
posted by Ned at 10:27 PM
1 Comments:
Response:
1. I definitely agree that such a simple economic model does not completely capture the dynamics of the Facebook system. What the social, behavioral, and biological sciences might call "signaling" certainly plays an important part in the creation and maintenance of an online profile.
2. Nevertheless, my Morroccan photos example is not explained by the specific circumstances of the Class of 2005. The trip consisted of a mix of underclassmen and upperclassmen with several individuals taking many digital photographs during the trip.
3. I would take your point further and argue that group pictures are even more valuable socially than individual pictures. However, due to the simple mechanics of photography, an individual is more likely to take pictures of others than of him- or herself. The majority of photos posted on Facebook include the profile owner, which is not what we'd expect if all photos were given equal chance of being posted. Thus I conclude that photos not including the profile owner are being systematically ignored, leading to a suboptimal number of pictures of me on the Facebook. And since the world would be better off with more people gazing upon my "windswept hair and dynamic smile", something needs to be done about this problem. For the sake of the children, of course.
Post a Comment
<< Home