In his book, Tales from Facebook, Daniel Miller explores
the societal impact of Facebook in Trinidad . As Miller explains in his preface, he believes
this displacement from the reader’s usual setting will make the book more “effective
at helping them consider the impact also on their own lives”(X). Just as
Professor Pandian questions the “space” in cyberspace, Miller further explains
that the internet and Facebook in general are defined not by any particular
group but by “whatever any particular group of users had made it into.” He also
believes Trinidad usage of Facebook is often not just distinctive but also
ahead of others in terms of thinking of how Facebook can be used making it an
ideal candidate to do anthropological research in. What do you think of Miller’s interpretation
of Facebook and the internet? Is there any way to define what cyberspace really
is or is it just a matter of how a group uses it as Miller suggests?
In this first part of the book we
reviewed Marvin, Vishala, Ajani, Aaron, Michael and Camille of the Elijah Ministries ,
and Burton Burton Trinidad ?
Do you think it applies elsewhere? Would you, or have you ever, allowed
a significant other to monitor your online activity? Was there a character in the first part of
the book you found yourself relating to the most and if yes how so?
I also thought much of Miller’s
book addressed this idea of connections discussed in the forum by Dr. Pandian. Not just connections in between spouses like
in Marvin’s case, but also in the way it was presented with Vishala and by the
members of the Elijah Centre. I believe Miller points out the distinct
advantages in connecting online in summarizing Vishala’s (who often IM’s twenty
people at a time) thoughts; “With IM on Facebook, no one else know what you are
saying to each other…people are much more ready to say things, personal things…on
Facebook than in everyday life…it’s not just easier to tell the truth, Facebook
is in itself more truthful as an encounter with people” (48). Perhaps it is this
aspect that allows groups like the Elijah Centre to create “unprecedented possibilities
for transnational communication” as they use the internet “as far more effective
way to get the Word out” (89). I find
this idea interesting and yet hypocritical to myself as I see the internet as
an anonymous, less connective place by the mere idea that I can not physically
see or hear the person I am speaking with and yet I can see how this forum can
be used to effectively gain followers of a religious organization. What do you think about the connectivity of
Facebook? Do you find yourself more “truthful” and open online with individuals?
Can you see the advantages and disadvantages of connecting with people in both
a physicall setting and one set through social media online?
The second part of the book, chapter
B, examined through 15 theses what Facebook may be turning out to be in general
and global terms. One of the essays that
struck me as particularly strong, and is addressed more in the “Representation”
blog of the Anthropology of Media forum is that “Facebook provides an
additional space for personal expression, especially a more creative or
extravert public presence, which may previously have been much restricted”
(169). The essay further expresses the
importance of Facebook in terms of representation and connection when “physical
disability (seen in Dr. Karamath, chapter 3) seemed destined to end that
sociable life” (170) as well as the idea that “Facebook seems to have revived
and expanded” communities (182). Dr.
Pandian also contributed much in the “Imagination” section of the blog that
Miller also discusses. Miller contends that
“one of the most significant impacts of Facebook will be on an internal world
of fantasy and imagination, where many people spend much of their time” (177). Facebook rather than past imaginations like
Second Life relying on anonymity, indicates an end to this anonymity (177). I believe Miller sums up the purpose of
Facebook best when he says “Facebook works best when used to compensate for the
deficiencies or stresses of other forms of communication” (184). What do you feel are the most important
implications of Facebook and its effect on our future? Do you agree or disagree with any of Miller’s
thoughts on where Facebook is heading? What
are your thoughts and preferences of anonymity (or privacy) online? How has
Facebook compensated for deficiencies in other forms of communication for you?
8 comments:
I agree with the lead post in that I enjoyed seeing how Marvin's personal relationships were affected by Facebook. The observed paranoia that Facebook created amongst the Trinidadian population seems to me to be an etic cultural effect and not an emic one-- the insight Facebook provides into people's personal lives (be it 'cyber' ones) can be overwhelming. My parents are actually in the process of slowly (and painfully) joining Facebook, and I have observed them noting many of the same social effects that Miller emphasizes in his book.
To address the question raised in the lead post, I would have to agree with Miller in the fact that cyberspace is completely-defined by how it is used and not what it consists of in and of itself (a concept that, in order to grasp, one must believe that 'cyberspace' does in fact exist independently of its users and is not merely a series of electromagnetic waves). Clearly, a politics of representation exists with regards to how we can define cyberspace in exact terms. Cyberspace, in my opinion, can be viewed as more of an abstract 'location' (as the name implies) and not merely an object. I do wonder, however, if before the internet spanned the globe a 'cyberspace' existed in the same way it does now. Do you think that cyberspace existed when the internet was merely used as a place of information exchange? Does information exchange by default constitute a social interaction?
Much like Ajani, I find myself scrupulously examining the border between public and private life and am fascinated by certain things I post on Facebook. The lead blog questioned whether or not Facebook has compensated for my lack of communication via other means- I find myself thinking that Facebook does not compensate for any deficiencies in my communications per se, but does supplement social interactions of mine with additional information about myself or my life that may not necessarily be noticed immediately by people I am conversing with (personal interests such as movie preference or so forth that I may not necessarily enjoy talking about). I am not sure whether or not Facebook is a useful medium for communication or socialization, but somehow find myself mesmerized by it regardless.
-Ian
I think Kyle’s question about the advantages and disadvantages of connecting with individuals in a physical setting versus through social media outlets such as Facebook, is a very interesting one. Of course one of the advantages of face-to-face contact is the ability to read body language and facial expressions, thus enabling a more accurate reading of comments and remarks that may be sarcastic or serious. Online communication media such as IM and even status postings carry the risk of misinterpretation. I have friends who often misread comments I make. However, in-person and social media relationships can influence one another in a way I did not consider before reading Miller’s chapter “Getting the Word Out.” In this chapter, Camille noted how “conversation when people actually meet is more likely to be of deeper intent and interest precisely because a lot of this ‘oohing and aahing’ about children and babies and clothing is now done through comments on Facebook photographs” (97). While social media communications may remove subtleties of interaction that can only be read through studying social cues, facial expressions and body language, they do in some ways enable a deeper level of conversation, in that small talk and “catching up” can be done relatively easily and painlessly through messages, status updates and photo comments. In this way, I think social media provides an advantage that in turn enhances physical communication. If you are already aware of your friends’ friends and what is going on in their lives through access to their Facebook profiles, you can use the coveted face-to-face time in order to discuss more important, less banal things that are simply a necessity or nicety in interpersonal interactions.
I also found Vishala’s assertion of Facebook as “more truthful” to be very interesting, especially as contrasted with Ajani’s usage of Facebook, to satisfy her need for self-expression while simultaneously keeping her most private self, irrevocably private. I am more inclined to take Ajani’s position in how I conduct myself on Facebook. I don’t feel that my profile reveals much about the intricacies of my life, nor do I feel that what I do reveal is the “truer” me than what I am in reality. This concept came up in one of Miller’s 15 theses on what Facebook might be, in particular as the transformation of self and self-consciousness. I agree with Miller when he says that “to determine whether, or to what degree, Facebook itself makes a difference to the nature of the self or self-consciousness is extremely difficult.” For Trinidadians the notion of a truer self is different than what we might equate with “truth” in the United States, or as Miller says, in England, and yet I think the personalized nature of one’s profile and the diverse ways one can use or not use Facebook features makes it hard to generalize this “transformation” (if it even is one, as Miller says, our notion of Facebook as more superficial is often contrasted with a mythical, seemingly more authentic past) even among inhabitants of one country.
--Sarah Schulman
I too, found Marvin’s to be an interesting case study. The fact , as Kyle noted, that the term “friending” had a specific connotation which predated its use in the context of facebook, is an important one. It seems as though, while Facebook certainly transforms communication and social interaction (giving Vishala an outlet for her ‘go brave’ philosophy, creating a forum for Ajani’s artistic passions, allowing the Elijah Centre to spread its word internationally)it also works in a less revolutionary capacity, namely exacerbating or unearthing aspects of society already in place. This is especially prominent with respect to Marvin, in response to whose experiences Miller states explicitly “this is Trinidad, partners will be jealous, and, in truth, partners will often have reason to be suspicious. Fears and anxieties about what Trinis call horning are part and parcel of relationships in Trinidad. But that’s the point: they always have been; there is nothing new in that al all” (8). Checking his Facebook correspondence thus becomes just a natural progression from checking his phone logs or direct confrontation of personal interactions. The problem is merely brought to the forefront with the technology rather than arising from it, a notion which often gets obscured in thinking of technology such as Facebook as innovative and entirely new. Similarly, though in a more subtle fashion, Vishala’s experiences reflect the same theme. She recognizes the implications of male and female interaction and the desires and passions which such interactions promulgate. Certain behaviors she acknowledges as being inappropriate or risky. Miller notes that she “is clearly not shy about her own interest in sex. She readily talks about surfing for pornography on line. But that’s the trouble. If a man has a webcam and she is sitting there watching him move, she feels she could get too interested in him for the wrong reasons and thereby lose control of the situation” (46). The availability of new technology does not entirely rework the way in which she interacts with men. Rather, it highlights the potential problems she acknowledges in such encounters and yields a slightly altered way of communicating based upon resilient values. That is not to say that social networking through Facebook did not change the way we interact, but just that it seems that the similarities and mere extenuations of our previous mode of communicating wrought in the experience of Facebook are overlooked.
I agree with Miller, as Ian and the lead post do too, that the Facebook is defined through its users and how they use it in their daily lives. It can be a place to talk to friends you never see physically, or a place to recreate yourself/ "edit" your image in cyberspace (which can effect your image in the real world as well). However, users still can't chose the layout of the website, which I think is also important, mostly because of one huge factor; the "news feed." I think that Facebook is so different than other communication websites because it constantly throws other people's business literally in front of your eyes, through the news feed. This part of facebook keeps users interested in the lives of other users, so much so that the stalking "stalking _______ on facebook" is a pretty regular phrase, and for me at least, also applies to a lot of my friends. I don't just "stalk" my best friends, but many acquaintances as well because their lives pop up in front of me on my news feed.
This lead me to think about the connotations of "friending" that Miller mentions. I personally rarely friend someone, unless they are actually a good friend of mine in the "real world" or if I need to ask them a question on hw, etc. and I don't have their number. But others seem to "friend" people they have never even talked to before. This is interesting to me, because the only interactions between these people who are now "friends" on facebook, are solely the act of claiming to be "friends" on facebook. Even still, they probably won't ever interact on facebook, besides "stalking" each other, maybe. In this case, I think this kind of connectivity is more out of curiosity, and certainly does not imply any real type of friendship. A friendship in the cyber-world is physically just a mouse click.
Ian's thoughts on the cyber-world pre-facebook and other communication websites scared me a bit. I think when I log onto the internet, no matter if its for facebook or a google search on a chemical reaction, I feel some sort of transition from real world to cyber-world. Do other people feel the same way? I'm having trouble figuring out why that is. I think it might be because I believe humans created the cyber-world. Anytime i'm surfing the web, I feel connected to humanity through this new world.
The character with whom I related to most was definitely Vishala. I thought that her take on Facebook and truth most aligned with my relationship with Facebook. One of the most telling stories was that of her friending her ex-boyfriend’s current girlfriend so that the current girlfriend didn’t have a misconceived notion of her. She says that if the girlfriend had just physically seen her, she probably would think that Vishala was insecure and then Vishala would never have the chance to dispel this assumption. However, now that they are Facebook friends, Vishala can ensure that she is thought of in the manner that she would wish to be thought of and they can have a friendship ridden with little to no tension. I often will add people on Facebook that I’ve met and don’t really “know” yet as a chance for me to present myself in a more well-rounded way than would come up in casual conversation, and in a way that I am choosing to represent myself. In this way, I feel that people can understand me in ways that are often lost in a one-dimensional friendship. Miller calls this “truth by construction”, which Miller says is “much closer to the truth of a person than what they happen to possess naturally through birth.” He goes on to say, “The natural physical self, whether her legs are long or eyes are dark, is a false guide to a person, because they didn’t choose to be like that.” This is what I mean with respect to a one-dimensional friendship; people can be quick to judge wrongly based on one interaction of the natural physical selves. Miller delves further into this idea in his thesis regarding Facebook as the transformation of self and self-consciousness. He writes, “We have reached the point where Facebook may be regarded as providing a crucial medium of visibility and public witnessing. It gives us a moral encompassment within which we have a sense not only of who we are but of who we ought to be.” So, not only is Facebook a representation of the “truth” we wish people to see, but it is also a refining of what we believe and hope to believe is our own truth.
In reading Ian's response, particularly when he said: "I am not sure whether or not Facebook is a useful medium for communication or socialization, but somehow find myself mesmerized by it regardless," I began to think about what it is about Facebook that interests me. The Internet as a whole is an entirely different world for sharing, interacting, and communicating all at the same time. This is what fascinates me about the Internet and Facebook (and what seems to fascinate Vishala as well)--that one can talk to friends and family freely without (virtually) any obstacles. However, like what Kyle brings up, there's always the possibility to represent yourself unlike your true person--or even the opposite, as Sarah says. This is defined in Miller's conclusion that Facebook promotes the transformation of self and self-consciousness. Like the other bloggers, I found this observation very interesting. If you look at anyone's Facebook profile here in the US, particularly their profile pictures, the user may have skewed the image to enhance theirselves in order to look a certain way they may not in real life. This, I think, has everything to do with the Internet as a security blanket. Users, in the privacy of their own space, can do whatever they please on the Internet and Facebook without the possibility of judgment from others. In "real-life," it seems that we must act a certain way or hide characteristics of ourselves to feel accepted. However, on the Internet, we have the freedom to expose our true selves--or, as mentioned above, even a skewed version of ourselves.
I found Ajani's take on Facebook extremely interesting. She uses Facebook as a means to find a "balance between self-sufficient inner soul and need to expel her creative energy through words to a public domain" (66). I think she makes a very interesting distinction between the public and private lives. Similarly to what Sarah Schulman said, after our cyber life is so easily published and interacted with, our private lives in some ways become more private. Our one-on-one interactions feel much more deliberate, because much of the more superficial interactions are done online. After considering this further, I agree with Miller and Geena in that Facebook promotes a self-consciousness. As much as my voyeuristic side takes over as I stalk people on Facebook, I'll admit that a lot of my time on Facebook is spent making sure my profile appears to the public as I would like it to. It is always odd to realize that even when you aren't near a computer and are completely engaged in your "real" life, your profile remains, open for anyone who feels like looking. Unlike daily interactions which are fleeting, and may indirectly cause a chain of events, Facebook interactions are explicit, and forever recorded. Thus, we have all learned to work within this medium and are conscious (and constantly reminded) of the fact that all of our cyber interactions are not actually private, and anything we post will be on a server somewhere...forever. Suddenly, in making sure to not "misrepresent" ourselves, we create profiles that publicly show who we think we are or who we wish we were. It is an interesting phenomenon and creates a new sort of narcissism, but simultaneously, an increased self-awareness.
Post a Comment