Kelsey Keegan
Media 260
10/20/11
Facebook: Changing More Than Just Statuses
With the ubiquitous nature of social media and the unconscious, yet incessant, nagging to
constantly be up-to-date with friends’ news and current events, the Millenial generation has become
master of “computer-mediated communication” or CMC, as Carlyne Kujath states in “Facebook and
MySpace: Complement or Substitute for Face-to-Face Interaction?”
This type of computer-
mediated communication, particularly the social networking site Facebook, has revolutionized the
way in which people correspond with each other. As of 2010, Facebook had “500 million members
in 207 countries” and was “valued at $25 billion” (The Social Network). Another statistic shows
that “80% of college students use [Facebook],” with it being the “number-one site accessed by 1824 year olds” (Kujath 76). One study even found that “the average Facebook user signs on about
six times per day” in order to change their status or to continually check and re-check friends’
updates (Kujath 75). This prevalent use of Facebook as a means of communicating and exchanging
information clearly has numerous effects on today’s society.
The current research about Facebook use and the resulting consequences have yet to come to
a definite conclusion in terms of its positive and negative effects. With the introduction of a new
technology it is harder to see the good and bad aspects of it right away. As new technologies or
inventions are assimilated into society over the years, however, it becomes easier to step back and
reflect on how the specific technology or innovation has changed us; changed the way we think, the
way we act, the way we communicate, etc. Because Facebook is a fairly new form of social media,
there is still debate about its long-term effects. As Neil Postman writes in his novel Amusing
Ourselves to Death, “Whatever the original and limited context of its use may have been, [every]
medium [of communication] has the power to fly far beyond that context into new and unexpected
ones” (18). The following media texts portray this exact notion—there is no saying what kind of
1
consequences Facebook use will have on society, especially in terms of relationships and selfesteem. One key point in the discussion of how Facebook affects relationships is the question of
using the site as an accompaniment or a replacement for direct, in person interactions.
Carlyne Kujath’s main argument in her article “Facebook and MySpace: Complement or
Substitute for Face-to-Face Interaction?” is that “using Facebook […] as an extension of face-toface interaction to maintain interpersonal relationships may enable users to broaden connections
that they otherwise may not have and to strengthen existing friendships” and that this could
potentially lead to “a stronger or larger social circle, depending on the goals of their use” (77).
However, she also writes that the study “did not examine the current quality […] of a participant’s
existing social circle” (Kujath 77). The speculated negative, and thus far less researched, aspect of
Facebook is its use as a substitute for face-to-face interaction and its possibility to deteriorate
relationship quality, decrease intimacy among users, and perhaps even make it more difficult for
social interaction in person.
Kujath stresses both the positive and negative aspects of using Facebook regarding
relationships, but seems to emphasize that how members choose to use Facebook is the determining
factor. If used to keep in touch with already established friends outside of the site, then Facebook
serves as a good means of communication and a complement to face-to-face interactions. This, in
fact, seems to be the case with the majority of undergrad students who participated in Kujath’s
study.
About “40% of the respondents reported having no friends on Facebook […] that they had
never met in person” and “the 100 respondents who did report having friends on Facebook […]
whom they had never met in person reported having an average of 7.2 such friends” (Kujath 76-77).
In addition, only “8% of the respondents reported having frequently used Facebook […] to meet
new people that they had never met before, while 75% reported frequently using it to keep in touch
with people they already knew” (Kujath 77). This data shows that the undergrad student’s primary
2
use of Facebook is as a means of staying connected and “sustaining a conversation” with alreadyestablished friends, not necessarily seeking to make new ones.
Several studies have suggested that these positive and negative effects are largely dependent
on the goals of communicating via CMC.
When “used as a substitute, the effects of CMC
[especially Facebook] on interpersonal relationships are negative and lead to a deindividuating
experience,” but when “used as a complement to face-to-face interaction, CMC facilitates the
maintenance of interpersonal relationships” (Kujath 75). Thus, this and other scholarly journals
seem to argue that despite “research on the use of specific social-networking sites such as Facebook
[being] in its infancy,” the way these sites are used, whether maintaining interpersonal relationships
by using the sites to complement face-to-face interactions or substituting these sites for such
interactions, is the key factor in determining positive or negative effects of sites like Facebook on
relationships (Kujath 75).
The New York Times’ article “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy,” by Clive Thompson,
is the next media text analyzed which also seems to portray the notion of Facebook’s rapid
uncontrollability and an uneasiness concerning the unpredictable implications Facebook use has for
society at large. One of the main components of Facebook is the News Feed: “a built-in service that
actively broadcasts changes in a user’s page to every one of his or her friends” (Thompson 1). As
Thompson writes, it is like a “social gazette from the 18th century [that] delivers a long list of up-tothe-minute gossip about […] friends, around the clock, all in one place” (1). Mark Zuckerberg,
founder of Facebook, describes the News Feed in Thompson’s article as “’a stream of everything
that’s going on in [friends’] lives’” (1). This sort of omnipresent knowledge, which is both
intriguing and addictive, is what users have come to expect when logging into their Facebook
accounts. This is also part of the site’s appeal.
Thompson further proves this point when he writes that “for students, [Facebook is] now
like being at a giant, open party filled with everyone you know, able to eavesdrop on what everyone
3
else [is] saying, all the time” (2). This notion is equally apparent in The Social Network when Sean
Parker, one of the eventual owners of Facebook, explains the site to a group of people: “It’s the true
digitalization of real life.” Parker goes on to talk about uploading photo albums, “tagging” friends
in these albums, and how by doing so, Facebook members are able to relive the party that they or a
friend attended. Later in the film Parker even states that “Private life is a relic of a bygone time”
and that “We lived on farms, then we lived in cities, and now we are going to live on the Internet”
(The Social Network).
In the New York Times’ article, Thompson also states that Facebook has prompted a “sort
of incessant online contact,” which social scientists call “’ambient awareness’” (3). This type of
awareness allows members to view their friends in a different, more in-depth, light than if they were
to interact solely in person. Facebook has become an “extension of communication with face-toface partners” (Kujath 75). Furthermore, when people do socialize face to face, it feels oddly as if
they’ve never actually been apart. They don’t need to ask, “So, what have you been up to?”
because they already know. Instead, “they’ll begin discussing something that one of the friends
[posted on Facebook] that afternoon, as if picking up a conversation in the middle,” a sustained
conversation if you will (Thompson 4). This constant online contact has made intimate friendships
“immeasurably richer” and “’weak ties’”—loose acquaintances, people [known] less well” more
abundant and apparent (Thompson 6). In “pre-Internet lives, these sorts of acquaintances would
have quickly faded from attention,” but when “one of these far-flung people suddenly posts a
personal note to your feed, it is essentially a reminder that they exist” (Thompson 6). In essence,
Facebook allows users to connect with those they’ll never forget and those they might have
forgotten, in addition to connecting with those they just met. This “rapid growth of weak ties,”
Thompson writes, “can be a very good thing” and poses this example:
If you’re looking for a job and ask your friends, they won’t be much help; they’re too similar to you,
and thus probably won’t have any leads that you don’t already have yourself. Remote acquaintances
4
will be much more useful, because they’re farther afield, yet still socially intimate enough to want to
help you out (6).
Despite this, Thompson writes “it is also possible, though, that this profusion of weak ties
can become a problem” stating that “if you’re reading daily updates from hundreds of people about
whom they’re dating and whether they’re happy, it might, some critics worry, spread your
emotional energy too thin, leaving less for true intimate relationships” (7). If this becomes a hassle,
though, there is a solution. Facebook now allows its users to control which friends see their posts
and which of their friends’ posts they are notified about, whether its status updates, photos, or
friendships.
Another caveat here is to acknowledge that not all Facebook “friends” are real friends.
Thompson summarizes Danah Boyd, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society
who has studied social media for 10 years, in one of her papers about how “awareness tools like
News Feed might be creating a whole new class of relationships that are nearly parasocial –
peripheral people in our network whose intimate details we follow closely online, even while they,
like Angelina Jolie, are basically unaware we exist” (7).
Boyd goes on to state that “’the
information we subscribe to on a feed is not the same as in a deep social relationship,’” and that
“’people can observe you, but it’s not the same as knowing you’” (Thompson 7). This is also
apparent in Thomas de Zengotita’s novel Mediated, in which he writes about how the never-ending
stream of media eliminates all distance or separation between individuals, making someone believe
they are personally connected to someone they might have never met (like celebrities), or between
individuals and various situations, like the prevalence of the “where were you when…” stories.
Ultimately, the scholarly journal, the New York Times’ article, and the film The Social
Network all stress the vastly powerful, yet still unpredictable, aspects of Facebook, but how
currently, it seems that as long as members use Facebook in a wise manner, specifically in terms of
5
using it as a complement to, not a substitute for, face-to-face interactions as a means of maintaining
old friendships and/or creating new ones, then Facebook seemingly has no real downsides.
The other important topic discussed in all of the media texts concerns Facebook’s affect on
its users’ self-esteem. Again, there is evidence that upholds and discounts Facebook’s ability to
boost self-esteem. One of the positive effects of Facebook use is that members are allowed to
connect with, and not forget about, people other than their close friends. Members can expand their
social circles simply by clicking on the “Send Friend Request” button. Not to mention, there is
always a sense of satisfaction when someone “accepts” your friend request.
It’s a certain
acknowledgement that you are valued enough in that person’s eyes to be their friend, even if it is
just a Facebook friend. What’s even more satisfying than this is when you see “Friend Requests” in
your News Feed. Again, there is this acknowledgement that “Hey, you seem cool and look like a
fun person to follow, so I would like to be your friend on Facebook.” This sense of acceptance,
both literal and figurative, is what boosts Facebook users’ self-esteem.
Another important aspect of Facebook, like Mark Zuckerberg states in Thompson’s New
York Times’ article, is that “’[it] has always tried to push the envelope. At times that means
stretching people and getting them to be comfortable with things they aren’t yet comfortable with’”
and how “’a lot of this is just social norms catching up with what technology is capable of’” (2).
One of Facebook’s appeals is the sheer popularity of it. People want to be on the cutting edge, to be
on top of things, and to keep up with current technological trends. Like Zuckerberg says in The
Social Network, “People are on Facebook because their friends are on Facebook.” No one wants to
be the last to get the newest gadget or the last to sign up for the latest social media craze. Likewise,
no one wants to be the last to know about current events and updates in their social media circles.
Thus, by having a Facebook account people are more likely to know what their friends are presently
gossiping about and are perhaps more likely to know about current events and news stories that
people discuss, which feeds into people’s desire to constantly be the first to know about something,
6
and thus boosts self-esteem. Take for example, Amy Whinehouse or Steve Job’s deaths. The
majority of people learned of these deaths from Facebook. As soon as a current event is discussed
on the site, it spreads like wildfire. To be the first to spread it, however, is a very powerful and
satisfying feeling.
One negative aspect of Facebook use on members’ self-esteem, however, is the constant
comparison of themselves with their friends and the user’s obsession with appearances. Typically,
Facebook users overestimate how great their friends’ lives are and the amount of fun that they have,
but this is because people usually post, and seemingly brag, about the positive things in their life,
not always the negatives. Some people even go to extremes in making sure that they are always
represented well. Thompson recalls an interview with Andrea Ahan, a 27-year-old restaurant
entrepreneur, who was aghast when she discovered that her high school friends were uploading old
photos of her to Facebook and tagging them with her name, so they automatically appeared in
searches for her. He remembers her saying that “’These pictures are totally hideous! […] I’m
wearing all these totally ‘90s clothes. I look like crap’” and how she then began “furiously
detagging the pictures – removing her name, so they wouldn’t show up in the search anymore”
(Thompson 8).
Thompson also makes an important point when he writes that “[Facebook]
participation isn’t optional. If you don’t dive in, other people will define who you are. So you
constantly stream your pictures, your thoughts, your relationship status and what you’re doing […]
if only to ensure the virtual version of you is accurate, or at least the one you want to present to the
world” (8). There is a sense of artificiality in keeping such appearances, but the majority of
Facebook users have gone through such identity “crises.”
The notion of everything being an act or performance in today’s society goes back to
Postman’s thoughts in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Many Facebook users write witty, or
seemingly witty, statuses for a means of entertaining others and most hope, whether they’ll admit or
not, that other friends will “like” their status. Postman writes that “there is an argument that fixes
7
its attention on the forms of human conversation, and postulates that how we are obliged to conduct
such conversations will have the strongest possible influence on what ideas we conveniently
express” (6). If someone posts a funny status, they are likely hoping, and more than likely will be
viewed by others, as humorous. An example of this is in The Social Network when Zuckerberg’s
ex-girlfriend makes a jab at him by saying it’s “as if every thought that tumbles through your head
[is] so clever that it would be a crime not to be shared.”
It really is all about keeping up
appearances.
Furthermore, de Zengotita writes in Mediated that “the feel of the virtual is overflowing the
screens, as if the plasma were leaking into the physical world,” as if blurring the lines between the
virtual world and the real world (15). In addition, de Zengotita states that “Some people refuse to
accept the fact that reality is becoming indistinguishable from representation in a qualitatively new
way” (18). As Thompson’s New York Times’ article nicely expresses, and as both Postman and de
Zengotita would more than likely see it, this “growth of ambient intimacy can seem like modern
narcissism taken to a new, supermetabolic extreme – the ultimate expression of a generation of
celebrity-addled youths who believe their every utterance is fascinating and ought to be shared with
the world” (3). However, Laura Fitton, a social-media consultant, points out one positive of this
“narcissism” in Thompson’s article, stating that her constant updating has made her “’a happier
person, a calmer person’” because as Thompson writes the “process of say, describing a horrid
morning at work forces her to look at it objectively” and Fitton adds that it “’drags you out of your
own head,’” as Thompson concludes that “in an age of awareness, perhaps the person you see most
clearly is yourself” (10). While Facebook use can boost members’ self-esteem by expanding social
circles, it can also cause users to obsess about their representation to the point that it becomes
unhealthy.
It is clear that Facebook has become a prevalent form of social media in today’s society, but
it is still unclear what long-term effects it will have on its members, in terms of both their
8
relationships and self-esteem. Like Zuckerberg said in the film, “We don’t even know what
[Facebook] is yet, we don’t know what it is, what it can be, what it will be. We know that it is cool.
That is a priceless aspect that I’m not giving up” (The Social Network). Based on the analysis of
these media texts, it is important to continually reflect on how Facebook has changed us and will
continue to change us, because as Postman states, “the clearest way to see through a culture is to
attend to its tools for conversation” (8).
Works Cited:
De Zengotita, Thomas. Mediated. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2005. 15, 18. Print.
Kujath, Carlyne L. “Facebook and MySpace: Complement or Substitute for Face-to-Face
Interaction?” CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 14.1-2 (2011): 7578. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2011.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. 2nd Ed. New York: Penguin Books, 2005. 6, 8, 18.
Print.
The Social Network. Dir. David Fincher. 2010. Columbia Pictures, 2011. DVD-ROM.
Thompson, Clive. “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy.” NYTimes.com. The New York
Times, 7 Sept. 2008. Web. 19 Oct. 2011.
9