“Social Ties: Networking Together,” by Yochai Benkler
Post your comments on the first assigned reading for Week 5: “Social Ties: Networking Together” from The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Post comments by noon, Monday, February 11.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I definitely agree with the author that online communication is a powerful way to maintain relationships with friends and family, as well as start and maintain limited relationships with others.
However, I’m not convinced that keeping in touch is all it’s cracked up to be.
Part of growing up and moving on from high school, college, etc. means you let some old friends go and start making new ones. I worry that the Internet can hinder people from becoming truly independent adults. This is particularly true among college students whose parents hover over them constantly with cell phone calls and e-mails.
At the same time, it’s nice to have some middle ground between being totally alone and being like the characters in a Jane Austen novel, stuck with many of the same people and the same social class snobbery in the same English town for your whole life.
I’ve met a couple of people in real life who I first became acquainted with on the Internet, but I’m only still friends with one of them.
On the other hand, two of my friends who are dating met each other through Craigslist. So, I guess real-world compatibility still matters!
February 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I agree with Cathy. Sometimes it’s good to let go of old ties. For example, I have been “Friended” by several people from high school and beyond who I’d rather not talk to anymore. Yet, I have to accept their friendship or risk being called ruld. This is the author’s “Friendster” phenomenon. I do not have over 300 friends– but according to Facebook I do.
One thing that I thought was interesting in the article was the talk about how Japanese teenagers use cell phones. Has anyone seen “Babel”? One of the characters was a Japanese girl who I believe was deaf. She used her cell phone for everything– as a way to live her alternate lifestyle as a short skirt-wearing party girl. The phone was like another character– a way to see what the girl was thinking.
I think that she’s a pretty good allegory for the Internet. The girl is able to widen her communication (she cannot actually hear her friends, but she can see their texts), while at the same time delve into a world that is not available in everyday life.
But I also want to touch on Benkler’s assertion that the Internet does not deteriorate other interactions. (Sorry if I jump around a lot here, I feel like the author covered a lot). I think for most people this is true. If anything, it’s helped me keep in touch with my good friends and family, but I haven’t made many connections outside of that online.
But I still think that the Internet has the capacity to both unite and divide. Look at Megan Meler, the girl who killed herself because a fictional boy (dreamed up by vindictive adults) told her she should. Megan listened more to a digital Dan than to her family.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312018,00.html
And as for the unifying factor– now that we have the Internet, and social networks like Facebook, it’s almost impossible to live anonymously. Tell someone your name at a bar or on the El (not recommended) and within days they will probably find you on Facebook. Don’t worry if you forget to get her number boys, you can always Facebook her.
Huh, I don’t feel much like I came to any conclusions, but neither did Benkler really.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I am not sure I buy the concept that the Internet ‘thickens’ our relationships with friends and family. Yes, it is easier to keep in touch with more frequency, but I think it also makes us lazy friends. It is much easier for me to type a short b.s. update email to a friend rather than actually pick up the phone and have a real (hopefully somewhat in-depth conversation) about what is actually going on in my life. Today, it is easy to equate writing on someone’s Facebook wall with actually being someone’s friend.
Benkler offers a quote from Sherry Turkle to this effect: “Is it really sensible to suggest that the way to revitalize community is to sit alone in our rooms, typing at our networked computers and filling our lives with virtual friends? Instead of investing themselves with real relationships, risking real exposure and connection; people engage in limited-purpose, low-intensity relationships. If it doesn’t work out, they can always sign off, and no harm done.”
As Benkler points out, the Internet simply replaces strong ties with weak ties. Now, instead of investing in just a few friendships fully, I can spread my time and energy to invest in countless friendships virtually. But the problem is that virtual friendships, for the most part, are completely unfulfilling. I do not get the kind of connection I want and need from my friendships from a conversation electronically. In order to really form a connection I am still required to pick up the phone and call one of my friends who I still have strong ties with.
My very closest friend, Jenny, does not have Facebook or Myspace, nor does she email much. Thus we are forced to (gasp!) interact via phone (she lives in Washington State) about once a week to maintain our strong bond. I very much enjoy maintaining our friendship and the hour-long phone conversations we have each week do much more for me than an Internet conversation ever could, but I do often wonder if our relationship would be affected at all if she ever joined Facebook or Myspace. I wonder if we would start to rely on that communication more.
Benkler says ‘thinness’ contributes to less time spent elsewhere, especially on relationships with family. But I would argue ‘thinness’ created by online communities contributes to a loss of time and energy spent on many other things. How easy is it to procrastinate on homework by ‘stalking’ people on Facebook or Myspace? Come on, we all do it. I actually posted a sign, a reminder to myself, that I should spend time at night doing something productive, like reading or sleeping, rather than spending that time on Facebook or Myspace. I took down the sign fearing it was a pathetic, but the point remains. Without even knowing it, I could easily waste an hour online with my “virtual friends” instead of investing in more productive activities for myself and my personal well-being.
All that being said, I am obviously quite hypocritical, and if any of you would like to be my Facebook friend, I would gladly accept.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’d like to reinforce Brenna’s point about having 300+ friends on Facebook.
The name of the chapter we read is “The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.” My key concern here is with the word “markets”.
My friends on Facebook aren’t all really my friends–some are co-workers or lots of classmates. Others are people I met at various functions or gatherings, and others are Facebook pages dedicated to this or that cause or topic. It’s not only a social networking tool, but a very useful professional networking tool.
This does not serve as a substitute for actual human interaction with people I consider my friends. I still socialize with my “real” friends and see them regularly.
I think concerns about the Internet reducing relationships between family members and friends are warranted, but this comes with a huge disclaimer. It depends on who’s using the Internet.
A kid who is an outsider at school might plunge into the Internet to get the attention he or she lacks at school or from family.
I’ve seen this happen and not only is it sad, but it also can’t be good for developing social skills. We learn so many things from being around others. In the wrong hands, the Internet can push a person away from those learning opportunities and interfere with their real world socializing.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Many people have already touched on the “Friendster” phenomenon but it is hard to read this text without taking a look at your own social relationships. I am a networked person. I am as plugged in, tuned in and connected as I could ever desire to be. Having gone in and out of having cell phones, turned off and on myspace accounts, disconnected from email I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of just what being a networked person means.
Barry Wellman calls all these plugs running through my social contacts “networked individualism.” I would agree. And I guess the question then is brought back to Benkler’s initial one at the beginning of this chapter: What does it mean to be a networked individual?
I agree that it can thicken both weak and strong social ties. Benkler writes that the internet along with other social networking technology can “thicken existing social relations, while also providing new capabilities for looser and more fluid, but still meaningful social networks.”
An example of this, and I hate to be so insular, is that for the first quarter of Medill I didn’t have facebook. I never had the slightest clue how all these people were possibly arranging these group meetups. Only after recently joining facebook I came to understand that it was by using networking technology. I attended a few of these gathers (not all I like my groups smaller) and already feel more connected with my peers. This is an example where thickening can be positive.
But I think becoming a networked person can also mean losing personal space and contemplation time. All of a sudden, there is the demand that you be connected all the time and not picking up a phone or returning a text is as good as a slap in the face. You become berated by these networking devices and all of a sudden, sure you have a lot of weak social connections but you don’t have time to think!
There is no doubt in my mind that were are becoming more socially networked people—more connected with a community around us. But what true genius ever came out of being socially connected. I think we should be putting our time and effort inspiring hermits.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:17 am
I seem to disagree slightly with Cathy and Brenna. I don’t see there being any harm in being Facebook or MySpace friends with folks I went to school with back in the day. Like Cathy said, it is important that people move on and form new friendships. (The “popular” girls from my high school all purposely went to college together in our hometown and are now forming a trophy wife club there. Definitely not healthy.) But in most cases, I think the online social sites are just a way to keep track of people. I view it as a way to network at this point. Say next year I get a job in Memphis. The first thing I will do is look on Facebook to see who of my long-lost acquaintances are living there.
I don’t believe that the Internet will weaken our relationships. It’s not as if (sane) people will choose to chat online instead of spending time with their friends. If anything, I think the Internet allows us to create weak relationships with people we might otherwise maintain no relationship with. For example: I meet a friend of a friend when his band comes through Chicago. I would never see or speak with him regularly, but because of our friendship on MySpace, we’ll stay in touch. Basically, I think that even weak relationships can be useful.
I think Benkler gets it right when he says: “Unless Internet connections actually displace direct, unmediated human contact, there is no basis to think that using the Internet will lead to a decline in those nourishing connections we need psychologically, or in the useful connections we make socially, that are based on direct human contact with friends, family and neighbors.”
February 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I’d have to say I agree with Heather that the Internet, at least in most cases, does not replace or destroy our social interactions with living human beings. It certainly modifies them – I don’t think it necessarily enhances them but it certainly opens the door to communicating with people we’d never have a chance to meet in real life.
I really liked Benkler’s example about the unfortunately-named Navy sailor Timothy McVeigh who was discharged after his superiors discovered he was gay by accessing his AOL account. In this case, a man was able to be “himself” even more in the online world than he was in the real world of military service, where he had to keep a major part of his personal life concealed for fear of losing his job.
Yes, there are millions of people who sink so far into their online personas that they completely shut themselves off from the outside world. There are a few examples of this that are funny (the whole time I spent reading this article I was thinking about the South Park episode in which the kids get hooked on World of Warcraft) and a few that are terrible (reported cases of child neglect – and even deaths – resulting from parents giving all their attention to online gaming without taking time to care for their children).
In the end, as in all adult decisions, it comes down to personal responsibility. There are PLENTY of distractions that can sap time from human interaction – television, drugs, NASCAR – but it’s up to the individual to determine a proper balance between the virtual and real-life communities.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
All this is well and good, but if social networking is all about putting information about yourself out into the virtual world and checking out others’ information, let’s talk about the kind of information being shared. One of the (I think) unexpected aspects of the social networking phenomenon has been a society of young people moving closer and closer toward having absolutely zero filter. With photos of drinking and drug use, blog posts about innermost thoughts and less-than-professional information being spread freely across Myspace and Facebook, the ideas of tact and privacy seem to be fading away.
And I don’t think this is just those crazy high school whippersnappers. About a year ago I was checking out the Myspace blog of a girl I knew who was 24 and not a complete idiot, and she had written about how she was filling a sock with nickels and putting a knife in her back pocket and heading out to “beat the s**t out of someone.” Now aside from the fact that that’s a really crazy and awful thing to do, what the heck? You’re really blogging about your intent to assault someone?
Anyway, one other thing I think is interesting is, in addition to what your Facebook profile says about you, what it says about you if you aren’t ON Facebook. When I told friends about my ex-boyfriend, I think I got a stronger reaction when I said, “He’s not on Facebook” than I did when I described any other aspect of him. Maude, I’d be interested to hear more about what things were like before you joined. It’s like you were a mysterious stranger from a foreign land!
February 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I agree with Heather that the internet can provide a useful tool for keeping in touch with acquaintances we would otherwise drop. I joined Facebook during its first six months of existence - the spring before my freshman year - and it’ll be interesting to see how useful it will be 3, 5, 20 years down the line. My parents keep in touch with a select crew of college friends. I like to think that I’ll have regular access to that college crew - like my parents’ - but I’ll also have occasional contact with high school friends or more casual college friends who happen to be conveniently nearby or passing through. I have far more Facebook friends than I have cell phone numbers, so without an easy online pumped-up rolodex, it would be impossible to keep tabs on my 300 closest friends.
I also wanted to say that my experience differs from Cathy’s in that I’m still friends with a few people I met exclusively online. We had reason to be seeking each other out (again, spring before freshmen year, I joined the “Northwestern 2008″ livejournal community and Facebook group - yeah, I was cool), and though I haven’t become as close with any of them as with my more convenient friends (ie the people in my dorm), I do still keep in regular touch with a number of them. If it weren’t for the internet, we wouldn’t really have had the chance to meet, and if we did, I’m not sure we’d have instantly recognized our compatibility (”You have a great sense of humor and good taste in music! Let’s be friends!”) So in that sense, online communication has actually enhanced my social network.
Maude already snatched the quote I circled and wanted to use, but here it is again: “Unless Internet connections actually displace direct, unmediated human contact, there is no basis to think that using the Internet will lead to a decline in those nourishing connections we need psychologically, or in the useful connections we make socially, that are based on direct human contact with friends, family and neighbors.”
February 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Certainly the new friend-sharing and -acquiring technologies are powerful tools. But like any new and popular technology there is more promise than actual results (unless you count A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila as “results”).
I’m still adjusting to Facebook and similar technologies. It’s not clear how or how much I’ll be using them in the future. Personally, they amount more to entertainment than relationship-building. And like any exchange in the virtual world, the rules of face-to-face social interaction are suspended in these arenas. So the fulfillment provided by these tools will at best be different from the benefits of enjoying a person’s friendship in real life. I don’t think that means people will decide not to continue using these technologies; I just think that twenty years down the road we’ll all have found we overestimated their impact on our lives.
Speaking of overestimating, the business world’s exhuberance over these networks of people is embarrassing. What is Microsoft planning to do with its 1.6 percent stake of Facebook for which it paid $240 million? How can Facebook really be worth $15 billion? Are they really paying that much for access to a bunch of high school girls who started a group called, “I would do Conor O’Toole and Dustin Crawford on top of a mountain?”
February 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Why is everyone so afraid of Internet connections and technology? I hardly think the unraveling of the social fabric will occur because I checked the Facebook newsfeed on my way out the door instead of calling my friend to discuss a party she threw in NYC. Sometimes we just don’t have time.
Pre-Facebook and MySpace, I would not have bothered to follow up at all. Social networking sites give people “time” to care. I mean how much more effective would having a five minute phone call be than a five minute glance at a profile page or writing an email in that time. The method of staying in touch does not matter to me as much as maintaining some sort of connection.
As far as establishing new relationships online and continuing them outside of the viral world, I do believe it is possible. My cousin met her husband through a religious chat forum. Things could have stayed limited to the virtual with them, but they CHOSE to seek each other out in the real world.
I agree with the quote used by Maude and Andrea. No amount of Internet use or Web tools will displace my need for direct contact with people. On days I have to spend all day alone working in my apartment, I am thrilled the next time I get to physically interact with anyone (no matter how many times I talked on the phone, G-chatted or Facebook stalked while I was alone). And I know other people feel the same, because I find myself sitting in Panera Bread or a coffee shop for nearly three hours with the next person I can agree to do lunch with me.
The only danger I see is the sense of “shared privacy.” Since we don’t SEE anyone looking at our profiles or thread posts, we often don’t think about how personal we are being. There really is no filter, as some people mentioned. Again, though, it comes down to choice. The same person that is posting her half naked photos of a drunken (but fabulous) St. Patrick’s Day on Facebook, is probably the same person who would flash a street full of strangers for beads at Mardis Gras. The Internet won’t stop a social person from being social. If you are a loner, you’re going to be a loner. The Internet just helps you feel less bad about it.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
For the most part, I thought the article lacked any real data, even though the author made repeated references to research and data. I would have like to see it, rather than hear about the theories surrounding it, as it all sounded rather anecdotal. I agree with the idea that “the internet does not make us more social beings, It simply offers more degrees of freedom for each of us to design our own communications space than were available in the past,” and that it doesn’t have a profound effect on the way most people relate to the world and other human beings. Assuming this is true, what would be interesting is a comparison of how this affects children who have not already established a frame of reference for who they would like to communicate with and how, versus adults who have a firmer grasp on the kind of communication they would like to support by using the internet. Also, how the internet affects different groups of people in different ways.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I agree with Angela, real lack of data. Mayhaps because the social networking world has different uses for/effects on everyone. For instance, both of my parents are on Facebook ONLY because they have six children all over the US and have a hard time tracking us all down on a regular basis. I have a new husband, my brother has a new baby, and my sister is pregnant, so having that ability to see updated pictures and news is very important to them. They don’t sink into the crazy online community world; for them it’s strictly to strengthen and maintain family ties.
For me, it has been useful for many reasons. I used MySpace to find other journalists in St. Louis, where I was looking for a job at the time. I was living in Texas and had never been to STL, so I counted on these new “friends” to give me advice and network. (And it worked.)
I’ve used Facebook to stay in touch with high school and college friends, and I have to disagree with Brenna on this one. I only keep in touch with those people I want to let into my life. Others, instead of being labeled as rude, I can add to a limited profile so they only see partial info. That way, you can in a small way maintain your anonymity but still keep up with those you wish to.
I’ve also used Facebook to get closer to one of my siblings. It may seem strange, but through Facebook, I’m let into a different aspect of her life that she only used to let friends see. (I’ve scolded her since, and she’s taken down the drinky pictures.) But it also allowed me to relate to her on a different level.
It’s also useful for forming new friendships, as many have pointed out. I’ve used Facebook several times to set up parties or other outings with my fellow Medill-ers. And because of that, I’ve gotten closer with some of them.
Basically, I’m a F-book addict. But I think there are so many benefits to online communities and they don’t seem to be coming at the expense of real-life relationships. Rather, they seem to be enhancing them.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Sorry this post is late, but my computer is on the fritz and I couldn’t connect to the internet to post all morning! But I am writing now, that’s all that matters, right? Anyways, now for this first article. Reading this article was interesting because it closely mirrors a conversation I had with my dad this weekend about Facebook. I was showing him the site and my profile, and he noticed that I was “friends” with some of his cousins children when an update about pictures they added popped on to the screen. His comment was “Wow, you know more about my cousins than I do! It’s amazing you can keep track of them all this way!” And in a way he is right. I see when they add pictures, change jobs, etc. It provides a little window into their lives. But do I realllllllyyyyyy know them? No. I can’t say that I write to them on a daily or even weekly basis. I don’t know what their job at Keller and Wertz is. So I have to agree with some of the people before me that said they don’t find that the internet really thickens are bonds with family and friends. I t can, of course, but that means it takes effort. I email, IM, facebook, etc. with my brother, mother and best friends from back home, but for the most part I just occasionally check up on those old high school and college friends and crushes through facebook or myspace, never messaging them or seeking out anything more than they post on their profiles. It is more a sense of voyeurism than anything else. I little dirty pleasure.
In conclusion, I agree with the point that was made by Benkler that the Internet doesn’t make stronger relationships, just lots of them. But can be really replace quantity with quality? I think it is a mistake. We should be encouraging people to get away from their computers and into the real world to make those deeper connections. I mean, you may have 500 friends online, but how many of those people would show up at your door with ice cream and a sympathetic ear when your boyfriend dumps you?
February 11th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I agree that online friendships often aren’t friendships, but what’s wrong with that? Granted, this is coming from someone who doesn’t have a Facebook or a MySpace account and doesn’t want either. I have friends. I need people who can tell me about job openings.
My only similar thing is a LinkedIn account that is intended to be entirely professional, not personal at all. I think it’s a more honest system, in part because it calls people “connections” rather than “friends.”
That being said, I have a friend who used to work for Stars and Stripes and traveled the world doing it. She lived in Japan and Italy and has friends everywhere from Uzbekistan to Normal, Ill. She swears by Facebook because, to the best of my memory, “I poke someone and I don’t feel so bad for not talking to them in so long.”
It’s sometimes hard to keep in touch with people and Facebook and stuff can help, I guess. It’s like sending a postcard rather than a full letter.
As for Benkler’s point about making more - not better - relationships, again, what’s wrong with that. I have my LinkedIn connection “Bill” who got along really well with me and would probably recommend me for a job if one should come up at his company. Then I have my friend “Will” who I grew up with and will probably ask me to be in his wedding. One isn’t replacing the other.
Granted, a lot of people choose to spend hours on Facebook that they could spend actually interacting with people, but that’s just sad no matter the site. A person alone on Facebook for hours is no more or no less sad than someone playing online shoot-em-ups alone for hours. Or watching TV.
And, in both cases, its their perfect right to do so. Not my cup of tea, but I don’t think society as a whole will be changed by this new trend. It’s an interesting development, but the core of face-to-face interaction, getting a meal with a friend, grabbing a beer - that’s been around a lot longer. Radio didn’t kill it. TV didn’t kill it. They all gave it some big wounds, but I doubt Facebook will be the thing to finish off social interactions.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
While I used to think that Facebook was the devil, I have to admit that it’s no longer quite as evil as it first seemed. My sophomore year in college, one of my friends created a Facebook account for me because I refused to join. For almost two years, all you saw was a question mark and my name. I didn’t even add people when they friended me. I didn’t want to get swept up in Facebook like some of my friends had. I was too busy to be toiling away for hours, stalking “friends” on Facebook. The friends who squandered away their time on Facebook are perfect examples the negative side effects of online communities. They would message each other online instead of walking down the hall to chat. Online time is no substitute for face-to-face contact, as many people have mentioned.
A couple years later, I warmed up to Facebook while I was studying abroad in Australia. Expensive international phone calls and a dial-up Internet connection didn’t give me much time to give separate updates to all my friends. Facebook enabled me to send messages to everyone from the same website. It was so convenient. While I’ll admit that we didn’t have any deep conversations on Facebook, it kept me updated in the lives of my friends thousands of miles away. Also, when I returned to the States, Facebook and e-mail allowed me to maintain the friendships and working relationships I made while abroad. I disagree with Benkler’s assertion that the Internet weakens social ties. In this case, there’s no way I can afford to fly to Australia to see my mates or read over a story with my editor. The Internet, in this case, has thickened my ties because it has allowed me to stay involved with people’s lives I wouldn’t necessarily be able to once I left Australia.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
In reading this essay, I was struck by how difficult it is to characterize all digital interactions at once. They’re too varied. There are ways for people to communicate without “temporal and spacial synchronicity” such as e-mail and blogs. There are ways for people to communicate in real time, such as IM and text messaging. There are person-to-person means of communication and there are forms of mass communication. There are restricted forms of communication that allow you to decide who receives messages and there are public forms of communication open to anyone with an internet connection.
And it makes no sense to look at just one of these forms of communication at a time. We’re all connected in a variety of ways. This may allow us to forge shallow relationships we might not have wasted our time on otherwise, but it might also allow us to form deeper bonds with people we would not have found the time to get to know otherwise.
The function of these different means of communication are constantly evolving as well. I used to send e-mails to faraway friends and family and chat with them on IM. Now those people read my blog or check with me on Facebook and leave me comments; e-mail is primarily a way I communicate with teachers, classmates, colleagues and employers; and for the most part I see IM as a waste of time. If I want to talk to someone, I can text message them and not bother with the possibility of being messaged by 10 friends trying to catch up with me at the same time.
I find I keep in touch with people much better through my blog and my Facebook page. I make a lot more information about myself and my life available for a person to read, but I don’t bombard him or her with it. (Imagine if every “status update” on Facebook were replaced by a phone call or e-mail to everyone you knew.) Instead, I put myself out there and people keep up with me only as much as they’d like. And then when we actually do talk, we don’t have to wade through all the details of the time we’ve spent apart. We both have a basic idea of what’s going on in the other person’s life.
I think the people with whom I develop shallow digital relationships are the people I would have lost touch with completely otherwise. But by maintaining that shallow relationship, which really doesn’t take much work, I have the opportunity to get back into a more meanful relationship with that person should they come back into my life somehow by moving nearby or by sharing a common experience.