By Andrae Bergeron
Remember when social media really started to become popular? I recall there being both feelings of fear and excitement in regards to how it would change our lives. Fear that it would completely take over, and excitement for the ways it could make our days more interesting. In my opinion it was Myspace that really introduced the seemingly endless possible ways in which social media can allow us to communicate. Although there were others before it—ICQ and AOL for example—Myspace was the first site where I felt that I could easily express myself as an individual. Using Myspace, I could show pictures, share music and other personal information, and chat back and forth with friends. As its popularity grew, people began treating their Myspace profile pages as personal descriptors, allowing them to express particular thoughts, beliefs, and feelings all to anyone willing to notice. Unfortunately, with this new way of self expression came a new way to bend the truth, alter perceptions, and create differing ideas of community. Social media has taught us a few things, like how quickly information can be shared, and the magnitude with whom it can be shared with. Mostly though, it has educated society on the power in self-advertisement. If we take a step back and really look at what social media is teaching us, I believe we will see a true threat to our identity. In these cyber worlds, we are strongly encouraged to seek and find others whom are like us. We are encouraged to create virtual communities, and to treat these communities as if they are the next step in man’s evolution in the ways of interaction. It would be a tragedy to find out that these virtual communities do not have quite the positive impact we are expecting. It would be a misfortune to realize that being online means much less than say, being in a room with real people and having real conversations.
Social media, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a form “of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos).” Upon reading this definition, one can see how such things as, “communications” and “online communities” drive social media. Without these correspondences and commonalities, it becomes difficult to see how social media could have made the progress that it has over the years.
Facebook, like Myspace, enables users to share and navigate individual profiles by the means of videos, photos, and texts. As to how many people actually use this form of media, COLORS Magazine notes that, “Studies from the 80’s predicted that America’s Social Isolation would have tripled by 2011. Instead, it has just reached the point where we communicate with Like[1] buttons” (page 2). The fact that so many people use some form of social media raises the question of, why? What is it that draws people to use sites like Facebook or Twitter to create online profiles? What’s the thrill to having 300 online friends, when most of whom you don’t really even know? Being a Facebook member myself, I have begun to investigate my own motives for using such a form of media to communicate.
Facebook is defined as, “a social utility that helps people share information and communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers”(Facebook.com). Here we see the word communicate again; and nicely paired with “friends, family and coworkers,” all of whom are necessary in the making of a community. Seeing these words again makes me think about how we collaborate online. On Facebook, there seems to be different kinds of people making up these communities. Take for example those users who have a more quiet and docile approach to using social media. These people operate as virtual voyeurs, perusing their friend’s profiles looking for a sentence, phrase, or picture to secure their lingering attention span. They rarely post, yet consume massive amounts of information. I know this group to exist because I deal with its members on an almost daily basis. I have a number of friends who use Facebook in just this way. They are very easy to identify: although seemingly inattentive as online social members, they are able to re-hash a number of various pictures and posts from different virtual communities when in an actual conversation. They love to discuss their Facebook findings even if they rarely provide any postings of their own. Then, there is the Facebook user whom operates much more actively, and uninhibitedly makes their presence known. These attentive communicators are constantly posting something on to their Facebook pages. Whether they are thoughts for the day, pressing news clips, or new profile pictures, these users operate Facebook as a means to document their lives—or at least what they want their lives to be perceived as. What interests me most about social media is the fact that all of this “communicating” is happening without there every being an actual physical encounter. With no voices to be heard or hands to be shaken, how can this be considered true communication? Is there not something to be said, or some true significance to communicating with all five of our senses? I do not go around smelling and touching every person with whom I communicate, but when I remember a discussion, I remember it because it had some sort of impact on my whole self. Rather than remembering a dialogue from the text on my computer screen, I remember things such as the sights and smells of the location, and the unique sound of the person’s voice. I fail to see how social media’s idea of communication can even compare to that sort of encounter. If the day was to ever come when the shaking of hands was seen the same as “liking” someone’s post, then our initial fear of social media taking over will have rung true.
In his essay titled Small Change, Malcolm Gladwell epitomizes the insubstantiality of social media. He begins by telling the story of a few rebellious southern African-American college students living in the early 1960’s. These students, being fed up with the overpowering racism of the time, began an explosive demonstration of sit-ins.[2] Gladwell tells of how quickly these demonstrations spread to many southern colleges and cities, such as Johnson C. Smith College in Charlotte, North Carolina, Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, St. Augustine, South Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. As interesting of a story this may be, Gladwell uses it to promote an opinion about social media’s lack of true power. After describing how rapidly these sit-ins spread, he states: “These events in the early sixties became a civil-rights war that engulfed the South for the rest of the decade—and it happened without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter” (Gladwell, page 1). When we begin to think of all the important movements and ideas that have been brought forth throughout the years, and we separate these historic events into categories of things that happened before the internet, and things that happened after, it becomes difficult to see if social media has provided such the important role in our progression as a people as we are led to believe. When these sit-ins were taking place all over the South of the United States, people were not using Facebook to share their feelings and motives regarding their defiant actions. Instead, these messages of boldness against such an atrocity as racism where relayed through the physical sharing of dialogues. And within these dialogs were shown what can never be shown on a computer screen: true, palpable feelings of hope and determination for equality among men, women, and children.
Under the subtitle “The Literacies of Social Media,” from the article, How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education, Mark Blankenship discusses what Howard Rheingold calls the “five ‘literacies’ of social media” (Blankenship, 4). Blankenship describes these stages in the following way: “Attention: The ability to know where and when to place one’s attention when navigating various types of social media and when navigating between social media and ‘real world’ moments. Rheingold, standing in front of a class, often would not be able to get his students to stop staring at their laptops or phones. We must be trained in how to decide what deserves our attention, or we will become overwhelmed and distracted”(Blankenship, 4). This first stage is incredibly important, in that it shows us that we must be willing to accept the fact of there being a drastic difference between what are perceived realities from online sources and those from “real world” instances. He goes on to describe the second stage as “participation”(Blankenship, 4). Here, participants of social media sites understand the importance of what and when to comment. It is important to note that we do not have the signals such as body language, tone of voice, or annunciation, with online dialogs as we do in real life. Because of this, one must learn how to understand what is being posted online, as well as, how to respond. In Rheingold’s next stage named “Collaboration,” Blankenship explains it as the importance in learning to work together in creating online communications. He uses Wikipedia as an example of a community where people work together to produce a virtual work done by contribution and collaboration. “Network awareness,” which is simply the understanding of the mechanics of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, is the third stage. Here we see that in order for us to create online communities, we must spend time acquainting ourselves with our chosen mode of sharing (Blankenship, 4). Whether we are using Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or Myspace, we must know how the site works in order to use it properly and effectively. It is the final stage however, that interests me the most. In this stage named, “Critical consumption,” people “surf an ocean of online information” in order to decipher between “reliable,” and “disposable” material (Blankenship, 4). This voyeuristic type of literacy does not seem to lend itself as a positive attribute to an online community. How can anyone communicate well if all they do is listen to others and never provide the reciprocity needed to create a dialogue? Furthermore, how does one decide which information is “reliable,” and which is “disposable” when navigating a site? The information provided on social media sites, which is given by those online users who are much more active, is distributed only at the discretion of the individual user. This brings up another question: what if a member of an online community is creating false information? In order for us to be in compliance with Rheingold’s five stages, we must make decisions on the integrity of the information we come across. Without having the physical aspect of a “real world” dialogue, it becomes rather difficult what to trust when we are reading.
It is this variance in communicatory authenticity that I believe draws many people to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Because it is so easy to post misleading information, people are often tempted to promote, or “show off” different aspects of their lives, regardless if the information is real or not. I first became aware of this possibility when I posted a picture I had taken from my phone of a very expensive luxury car. I one day wondered into a local car show which basically amounted to a handful of wealthy individuals standing beside their extremely expensive automobiles, waiting for an opportunity to talk shop with anyone willing to make eye contact. The cars all belonged to gentlemen who had the heir of those who belong to a different time period; a time where one’s vehicle was more than just a status symbol, it was an expression of it’s owners personality. I do not frequent these types of shows—I have never been one to gawk at the industrial intricacies that are automobiles—but on this day I had some time to kill and I didn’t see the harm in humoring a few (very rich) older men. The car in the photo I took was so expensive that it would take a person with a much higher pay grade than my own to acquire it. Minutes after posting this picture to Facebook, I began to receive comments from some of my 145 Facebook “friends.” I am still unsure as to why I actually posted this picture; I guess you could say I was momentarily moved by the car’s sleek design and mechanics. Despite my motives, I never intended to imply that this vehicle was my own. However, many online surfers seemed to see this information as reliable and true. The comments I received were ones of surprise and congratulations on owning such a fine piece of equipment. I quickly explained to my viewers that I was indeed not, as they inferred, so elite, and that the car was not mine. Even though it was unintentional, I managed to virtually “show off” a false perception. By merely posting a picture, I was able to inform my viewers of my social class. Had these people been actual friends of mine, they would have known, even from first glance, that I could never afford such a vehicle. Without proof it is very difficult to designate which information is “reliable,” and which is “disposable” in an online community filled with people labeled “friends,” who are, in all actuality nothing more than distant acquaintances. This makes sites such as Facebook about as believable as television reality shows. Without physical communication the element of trust begins to waver; and without trust, how can we expect to communicate at a level beyond that of strangers?
Mark Blankenship’s essay promotes an important realization by stating: “…the best ideas often come from sharing an actual space with someone” (Blankenship, 4). Once we come to the understanding that social media is an inferior method of communication and community, we can see that the evolvement in the ways in which we relate to one another is not solely determined by the digital world of social media. This being said, Blankenship also notes that social media will not be going away any time soon.
This then makes me wonder, how do we use social media well? As much as I wish that there was a simple answer to this question, I believe it will take some time for us to really understand the relevance of Rheingold’s first stage of social media literacies. It will not be until we can understand and operate according to the fact that social media is not the same as “the real world” that we can use it more beneficially. Until then, be careful of what you post, some people will believe anything they read.
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). (2008). Springfield, MA: Merriam-
Webster
Shah, Vidhi. (2011, November, 7). Out of touch. COLORS. Retrieved from
Facebook (2009). Press Room: About Facebook. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from
Gladwell, Malcolm. (2010, October, 4). Small Change. New Yorker. Retrieved from
Blankenship, Mark. (2011). How social media can and should impact higher education.
Education digest: essential readings condensed for quick review, v76 n7 p39-42.
Retrieved from http://www.eddigest.com/index.php
[1] “Like” buttons are icons posted beside every comment made on Facebook. If you enjoy a posting done by one of your friends, you can show appreciation by clicking the icon. The icon will then show—to anyone else who happens to come upon the post—who has “liked” it.
[2] Sit-ins is the term used to describe the act of “sitting in,” and remaining in, restaurants and dinners for long periods of time, done by those who opposed racial segregation, during the 1960’s.
