facebook community: a new place for friends, sharing stories, and changing the way people...

7/30/2019 Facebook Community: A New Place for Friends, Sharing Stories, and Changing the Way People Communicate

1/63

The Facebook Community

1

The Facebook Community:

A New Place for Friends, Sharing Stories and

Changing the Way People Communicate

Juan Carmona

Sociology 571

Qualitative Methods of Research

25 April 2013


2/63


2

INTRODUCTION

For thousands of years humankind has gathered together to form communal

groups based on mutual needs and interests. By forming interpersonal relationships,

individuals are able to create exclusive bonds that collectively form what scientists call a

community. The conceptualization of this term is important for sociologists trying to

uncover the meaning by which members of a society interact and find inclusion in a

particular milieu. Since the systematic study of communities began, people have been

linked to immediate friends, family and acquaintances that reside in propinquity of each

other (Schnettler 2009). We look to these individuals to form social bonds and to sketch a

meaningful conception of ourselves (Copeland 2012). Historically, these community ties

have been established in villages and neighborhoods where individuals frequently see

each other and can formulate interpersonal relationships. However, in contrast to todays

society, interactions of the past were restricted by time and place; it was virtually

impossible to maintain such associations outside ones own proximity.

It was not until technological advancements in communication came along that

people had the ability to network without the constraint of geography. The spatial limits

by which relationships were bound vanished when the telephone was invented; this

consequently resulted in the transformation of how members developed and maintained

relationships with one another. Years later, the advent of the Internet once again changed

the status quo. Like the telephone, the Internet had the ability to sustain relationships

across vast distances and time zones (Wellman 2001). However, despite their similarities,

these two mediums of communication had one major difference. While the telephone

freed people from the limits of geography, it continued to rely on real-time conversation.


3/63


3

The Internet did not have these restrictions; in fact, this new technology embraced a

virtual culture characterized by a timeless time and a placeless place (Stalder 1998:30).

Nevertheless, the question remains whether information transmitted through the

Internet can foster quality relationships that support community ties. Some observers

argue that contemporary methods of communication are weakening relationships by

inhibiting face-to-face interaction (Wellman 2005) and exploiting individual privacy

(Houghton and Joinson 2010). It is disputed that the ease by which people communicate

in todays world is making people indolent, thus creating far-flung relationships that

result in inauthentic forms of communication (Fisher 1992). The relationships formed

through these methods may harbor a more open society that is no longer limited by the

four walls in which social interaction took place. However, the disappearance of spatial

boundaries has created issues concerning the privacy of individuals. The rise of the

Internet revolution has thereby resulted in an ambiguous setting that continuously blurs

the lines of privacy.

The following study argues how modern methods of communication are a

supplement to real world interaction that are connecting communities rather than

unraveling them. Using the results from a systematic study of the social networking site

Facebook, this research looks at how theories from Castells (Social Network Theory),

Homans (Social Exchange Theory), and Goffman (Face-work) can be used to understand

the interactions that occur in this virtual world. New modes of communication that are

less personal, such as Facebook, were found to perpetuate community ties in the offline

world because of the increased accessibility to information, a phenomenon originally

exposed by Castells. Nevertheless, while relationships infrequently based on face-to-face


4/63


4

meetings are reinforced through this new mode of communication, the ease by which

information is relayed on Facebook diminishes the presence of more personal

interactions, and debilitates the quality of stronger relationships. Furthermore, because

individuals are innately social they have become dependent on these massive, albeit

impersonal, bits of information; users of the Facebook community are willing to sacrifice

their own privacy in exchange (Homans) for the opportunity to have more access to

others. Lastly, results from the study found that a substantial amount of information

shared on Facebook is often manipulated to show a specific form of oneself, a paradigm

that Goffman termed Facework.

A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted using a convenience

sample of undergraduate and graduate students from a northeastern university in order to

analyze these issues. In a collaborative process with the participants, a grounded theory

approach is taken in order to determine how new methods of communication, such as

Facebook, can establish new forms of community structures, and how these communal

ties have the uncanny ability to positively, or negatively, extend themselves onto the

offline world.

WHAT IS A COMMUNITY?

In order to effectively comprehend how changes in communication have

transformed communities, it is important to take a closer look at the characteristics that

define a community in the first place. In the most general sense, a community is

considered a network of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information,

a sense of belonging and social identity (Timms 2002:1). One of the imperative features

that are necessary to fulfill these requirements is shared interests. These connections have


5/63


5

been historically established in neighborhoods where families and close friends are more

likely to congregate and share experiences. It is here where emotional connection and

integration is formulated, and where boundaries are established, thereby separating those

who are included into a community and those who are not (Reich 2010).

Nevertheless, as the methods of communication progress in society, the limits that

once restricted communities to set boundaries has slowly dissipated; this has led to new

generalizations by which we can define this intricate concept (Wellman 1999). By the

middle of twentieth century it became apparent that developments in communications

technology were rendering obsolete the concept of community as physically bounded by

neighborhood parameters (Kerckhove 1991). The degree and complexity of relationships

expanded to limits that society had yet to experience, thereby causing changes in

community formation. Nonetheless, despite these expansive transformations in

communication, the same robust and universal laws that govern natures webs continue

to define communal ties throughout society (Schnettler 2009:170).

THE ABSENCE OF TIME AND SPACE

One of the key changes to the community as a result of the changing culture of

communication is the relinquishment of time and space. For most of human history daily

interaction with others hasbeen confined to those sharing the time and space to interact

(Timms 2002:1). These exchanges occurred in a members neighborhood or village; they

also transpired in a variety of social settings such as bars, clubs, supermarkets or church.

However, as a result of technological advances in communication, network relations are

no longer confined to these venues (Wellman 2005). Giddens (1990) argued that the most

important development of the new historical moment was the intensification of world-


6/63


6

wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are

shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (64).New forms of

communication allowing the constraints of time and space to be overcome have absolved

individuals from these limitations, and have provided a new basis for both community

and identity (Timms 2002). Furthermore, the separation of community from the

immediate constraints of physical geography reduces [the] pressures to conform to one

set of group expectations (Timms 2002:5). These new structures for interacting

encourage the formation of more heterogeneous groups that are still based on shared

interests, but collectively embroider society with more diverse alternatives, irrelevant of

space or time.

The changes to the community as a result of these transformations have not been

small. Community is rarely based on local neighboring anymorenor do we find as

many densely knit and organized groups in public places (Hampton 2003). Instead,

modern communities more often interact in private settings where they have the

individual freedom to communicate at the time and place of their choosing. People are

now more likely to congregate in each others homes or use modern modes of

communication to meet their relationship needs from a distance (Wellman 1999). The

degree of complexity that has formulated from these interrelationships makes it more

difficult to define the boundaries on which community ties sit (Schnettler 2009). Castells

(2000) called this new type of community a network society: a society whose

composition is no longer structured by the restraints of space and time, thereby leading to

a less hierarchical and centralized world (Ampuja 2011). As a result, we end up with

communities that are more loosely knit but more feasibly connected; however this is the


7/63


7

basis for an opposing argument that modern communication is weakening relationships

and destroying communities.

WEAKENING RELATIONSHIPS?

Critics wonder whether relationships between people who never see, smell, or

hear each other can be a basis for a true community (Wellman 2001). The decreasing

relevance of time and place in relationships is said to have made people more isolated,

resulting in the deterioration of substance based relationships, or interactions that are

more personal in nature. A survey conducted in the United States to monitor social

relationships found that the average number of people with whom Americans discuss

important matters decreased from 2.9 in 1985 to 2.1 in 2004 (Wang 2010). Robert

Putnam described this phenomena as Americans bowling alone; as a result of modern

communication methods, they are much less involved in voluntary organized groupsbe

they bowling leagues, churches or unions (Wellman 1999:5). Putnam was not the only

scientist who felt this way. Early Sociologist George Simmel (1922) believed that society

was headed in the direction of a new individualism, which would ultimately lead to

more superficial relationships.

Opponents also argue that the inability to communicate face-to-face can lead to

misleading interpretations that could otherwise be avoided. Scheff (2005) believes that

confusion over the context in which words are articulated can arise in the absence of

body language. Commonly used words can have more than one meaning and their

interpretation can be quarrelsome. Goffman (1955) believed these types of interpretations

were often the result of Face-workindividuals who present a front stage persona as

a way to manipulate their true (backstage) selves (in Lemert 2010). Furthermore, Timms


8/63


8

(2002) argues that the absence of face-to-face interaction and the blandness of

communication can cause people to read more or less than what is intended. It forces

people to be alert and creates a lasting feeling of tension that further alienates individuals

from more solidified community ties (Fisher 1992).

Despite these anomalies, research has shown that interpersonal relationships have

continued in abundance, and have vitalized despite modern methods of communication

(Wellman 1999). Albeit his initial criticism, Simmel believed that these new communities

were the product of individuals [who] were no longer totally enmeshed in one social

circle (Wellman 1999:4). Instead, the populace has become a component of a much

more diverse and heterogeneous pool of communitiesembracing a kind of culture that

Kerchov (1991) called transinteractivity, in which they have the ability to extend

[their] powers, thought, feeling and action across the ocean or across any distance (133).

As a result of disappearing spatial boundaries and temporal limits, societys ability to

mitigate relationships has become more manageable (Tufekci 2008).

These changes in communication have continued to harbor a way for people to

sustain social ties on the basis of the same shared interests that held them together once

before.Communities are no longer formed within a physical set of boundaries; therefore,

there is no longer a need for a community to be based on a homogenous group of people

from a single location. Nevertheless, the facility to overcome time and distance is not a

catalyst for diminishing communities. In fact, it can be duly noted that just as not all

groups of people that communicate from a distance can be considered communities,

neither can all groups in the same geographical location be considered a community

either.


9/63


9

New technologies have thereby fostered a new way of communicatingone that

is more informal and superficial, but also one that could enforce weak ties and reinforce

strong ones. Weak ties are particularly important because information can reach a larger

number of people, and pass through a greater social distance, when passed through weak

ties rather than strong (Granovetter 1973). Because stronger ties are more close-knit,

information has a more difficult time of escaping these enclosed social circles and is less

likely to reach larger populations. David Brin (1998) believes this is important because as

information is exposed to more people, a more transparent society results in which

individuals adapt to new social behaviors that may have previously been stigmatized

(Tufekci 2008). Therefore, the fewer indirect contacts one has, the more encapsulated he

will be in terms of knowledge and the world beyond his own friendship circle

(Granovetter 1973:1371). The Internet, a relatively new technology that reinforces these

ties, has radically changed the outlook of relationships within communities.

THE INTERNET AND THE NETWORKED SOCIETY

Since its infancy computers have created a new form of communication that

drastically changes the way humans interact with one another. Proponents argue that they

have reinforced far away relations and created worldwide networks and communities that

were unimaginable a century ago. Others contend that they have resulted in communities

that are indolent and invasive. Nevertheless, computers have become as common in the

home as the bathroom, sharing domestic place in living rooms, family rooms and

bedrooms (Wellman 2005). In a survey conducted by Wellman in 2005, 79% of all

participants had at least one computer in the home; out of these computerized households,

94% of them were connected to the Internet.


10/63


10

While at first the use of the Internet was dependent on a much slower telephone

connection, it soon became an independent entity that cultivated a quick and reliable

method for social interaction. By 2008, an average of 69% of Americans among the ages

of 18-29 had a broadband Internet connection at home, and were spending up to 2.2 hours

online per day (Jones 2009; Wang 2010). One of the ways in which individuals spent this

time was through asynchronous modes of communication such asE-mail. Since its

incorporation in the early 1990s, E-Mail and other types of instant messages have enabled

people to manufacture and share all types of information and cultural experiences

unrestrained of time or location (Wellman 2005). E-mail messages are sent and received

instantaneously which cuts the time of information exchange dramatically. Additionally,

individuals do not have to be connected simultaneously in order to interact, thereby

increasing the convenience and autonomy by which social interaction occurs.

Analogous to earlier communication technologies, E-mail embraces a more

informal way of communicating and sustaining weak ties. People are able to maintain

affinity by using small gestures such as forwarding jokes and pictures, which can be a

quick and efficient way of congealing ties (Wellman 2005). E-mail messages can also be

sent to a larger number of people simultaneously, making it easier to keep members of a

community informed. This innovative technology transformed peoples lives in terms of

how they worked, formed, and maintained social relationships on a regular basis

(Houghton and Joinson 2010). For this reason it is plausible that the Internet is second

only to offline friends and networks for providing cultural information, a ranking that is

likely to surpass the latter at some point in time (Wellman 2005).


11/63


11

Based on this evidence it can be argued that the Internet does not vanquish the

importance of physical space; rather, it supplements it by adding to existing means of

communication, thereby increasing the overall volume of contact with existing social ties

(Hampton 2003). Castells (2000) contends that these communication technologies have

spread throughout the world with lightning speed and are connecting society in more

sweeping ways than any other technological revolution. This argument is supported by

research that has found that Internet augments peoples social capital by increasing

contact with friends and relatives who live nearby and far away (Wang 2010). A 2004

Pew survey about American sociability found that Internet users had a median of 37 close

ties in their social circle compared to 30 for nonusers (Wang 2010). Furthermore, the

same survey showed that the number of Americans relying on the Internet for major life

decisions has increased by one third since 2002 (Wang 2010). For this reason, Wellman

(2001) argues that the Internet provides a ramp to the global information highway and

strengthens local links within neighborhoods and households (27).

ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

Despite the popularity and changes that email and other instant messengers have

cultivated in recent years, no innovation has transformed the community as much as

online social networks. While the main purpose for Internet usage in the 1990s was

entertainment, the twenty-first century has seen its primary use shift to social interaction

(Schwartz 2010; Gross 2004). The attractiveness of this new medium is fairly recent;

however, that has done little to stagnate its growth to be recently identified as the most

popular form of communication onlinesurpassing the frequency of E-mail use (Perotti

2011). More social networks are being accessed daily across a range of time and spaces,


12/63


12

much more than the E-mail and telephone have ever been able to do (Perotti 2011). As

early as 2006, 67% of online users among the ages of 18-32 were involved in some type

of online social network; 60% had created some form of personal profile (Jones 2009).

Boyd (2006) described social networking sites as a category of websites that

allow for personal profiles where individuals can share and comment on real-time

information (Tufekci 2008). Members of these networks are encouraged to post as much

or as little information about themselves to an audience of their choosing. Tan (2008)

compared these types of interactions to online diary entries organized in reverse

chronological order where people could write anecdotes [ranging] from lengthy opinion

pieces on controversial topics to one-sentence seemingly meaningless personal

statements (Schwartz 2010:5). While many of these sites have increasingly different

purpose and audiences, Boyd and Ellison (2007) agree that they all share three common

elements: They allow individuals to construct a public or semipublic profile within a

bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and

view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system

(Houghton and Joinson 2010:74).

Social formations such as these are persistently emerging online around primary

identities from which members can choose from and join. Online communities are

frequently formed on the basis of sexual identity, religious beliefs, ethnic, territorial,

national or other backgrounds and interests (Stalder 1998). These online networks

thereby create a portal for categorizing and managing relationships, and provide a

convenient and efficient way of communicating with members ofones own network

(Perotti 2011). It also enables users to more effectively organize their lives around these


13/63


13

networks by reliving shared experiences and embracing new ones (Perotti 2011). As

Rheingold (1993) eloquently captures in this passage about virtual communities:

People in virtual communities exchange pleasantries and argue, engage

in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, shareemotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, findfriends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of

idle talk. People in virtual communities do just about everything people do

in real life, but we leave our bodies behind. You cant kiss anybody andnobody can punch you on the nose, but a lot can happen within those

boundaries (3).

Online social networks have therefore helped change the definition by which we view

communities in todays world. The prevalence of these contemporary networks dissuades

the assumption that people can only form communities within neighborhoods, kinship

groups or other bounded solidarities (Wellman 1999). Alternatively, it facilitates the

conceptualization of communities as being made up of a wide range of relationships,

wherever they are located and however they are structured (Wellman 1999). As these

online networks become incorporated into everyday life, the degree to which it extends

onto the offline world becomes greater. The interaction exchange formulated in the

online world becomes a supplement to the interactions that occur in its offline

counterpart. As a result, the information that is traded in these interactive websites is used

to further solidify relationships in the disconnected world. Nevertheless, critics remain

adamant that the connections within these communities are vague and that the

conceptualization of online friendships is lackluster.

VIRTUAL FRIENDS

Like the networks they join, virtual friendships are typically cultivated around

areas of common interest. However, while the concept of friendship is structurally

defined in the offline, its interpretation can be very broad and ambiguous in the online


14/63


14

world. Members of different online networks often havefriends who are close knit, while

others are casual acquaintances or complete strangers whose identity is not known

(Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn & Hughes 2009). The definition of a friend in a social

networking site is therefore not synonymous with that found in the offline world (Tufekci

2008). As a result, a complex amalgam of friends in online social networks can be

threatening to the efficacy of social relationships.

While social interaction in society has transformed along with the revolution of

technology, at no time in history has friendship been so vaguely identified. Jordan

Copeland (2012) believes that virtual friendships develop in the same way that traditional

friendships do because they serve a similar purpose and significance as offline

relationships. Friendships are built on mutual knowledge that is shared among individuals

in social situations (Boyd 2008). However, online friendships are sometimes validated

solely on the interactions that occur through these online networks and nothing else.

James Sulers disinhibition theory (2004) argues that people will say and do things in

cyberspace that may not normally do or say otherwise (Schwartz 2010). Likewise,

Goffmans (1955) Face-work paradigm expresses how individuals manipulate their

identity in order to elicit a specific reaction (in Lemert 2010).

Misrepresentation is more prevalent in social networks and the indolence of

relationships that critics speak of is therefore acutely possible. Online profiles are a

means for identity presentation that is often deceptive or completely wrong. In a

technologically mediated society, being seen by those we wish to be seen by, in ways that

are congruent with our desire, is comparable to Goffmans (1959) own standpoint.

Tufecki (2008) said, One cannot present an online persona without manifesting a certain


15/63


15

level of self-definition (33). Personalization becomes much easier when it is conducted

through an online medium that is devoid of many physical characteristics of the offline

world.

Members of online social networks also often post an excess of information about

themselvesa lot of times which is personalin order to construct their identity. Boyd

(2008) argues that human instinct makes believe that individuals who share personal

details are indicating trust, giving reason for their actions. People relish information about

themselves in order to express social connectivity and so that others will feel more

comfortable doing the same. George Homans (1958) characterized this behavior as an

exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of

approval and prestige (606). While this exchange may be structurally functional in terms

of constructing identity, the influx of personal information often threatens the privacy of

the individual. Margulis (2003) argues that privacy involves control over shared

information and that regulating access to self will reduce vulnerability. However, the

tendency for users to share personal details interchangeably increases this vulnerability.

PRIVACY IN THE ONLINE WORLD

Researchers who look at rising Internet use have increasingly stressed the

importance of understanding the extent to the webs boundaries and possible

consequences for sharing too much information (Houghton and Joinson 2010). However,

users in online communities often perceive information as social capital that can be

traded and negotiated (Debatin et al. 2009), a phenomenon best explained by Homans

Exchange Theory. Several studies have found that users negotiate and manage the

tension between privacy risks and expected benefits (Debatin et al. 2009:87). Homans


16/63


16

(1958) argued that in the context of social exchange, persons that give much to others

try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to

give much to them (606). As a result of this elaborate exchange of behaviors, the risk

that comes from sharing too much information is often overlooked by its immediate

benefits.

Within the exchanges that occur in online relationships there are interactions

involving family matters, thoughts, and desires (Boyd 2008). Typically, more detailed,

intimate aspects of ourselves would only be shared with those we hold private bonds of

closeness with; far less information is shared with those holding less intimate connections

(Houghton and Joinson 2010). However, the online world of social networking is

prevalent with public information that often leads to undesired exposure. As part of his

research, Tan (2008) interviewed one participant who said, Blogging is like keeping a

diary under your bed, only the whole world knows its there (Schwartz 2010:6). When

information is shared through a public interface, with virtual friends, it is difficult to

determine whom and how many persons this information is ultimately shared with.

Some researchers argue that exposing personal information is individual choice

and a fundamental part of the exchanges that occur online. Alan Westin (1967) defines

privacy as the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves

when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others

(Margulis 2003:412). Furthermore, Altman (1975) believes that privacy can be viewed

from the perspective of control: Whether it is control over personal data, the choice to

disclose data, the physical presence of others, the number of others present in disclosure,

or choosing which person to discuss and share issues with, control is central to


17/63


17

maintaining privacy (Houghton and Joinson 2010:78). Nevertheless, it is difficult to

control the flow of information in an environment that lacks architecturally defined

boundaries (Boyd 2008). While audio and visual limits are in place in the physical world,

people do not have a sense of just how public their actions may turn out to be online

(Boyd 2008).

According to Schatz Byford (1996), at no time have privacy issues taken on a

greater significance than in recent years (Houghton and Joinson 2010). Technological

advances have led to an emergence of an information society that is capable of

gathering, storing and circulating increasing amounts of private information (Houghton

and Joinson 2010). Nevertheless, Altman (1975) argues that there is an optimal degree

of desired access of the self to others at any moment in time (Tufekci 2008: 21). A state

of complete privacy would be akin to a state of absolute solitudesomething that is

neither in the best interest or desire of the social self (Altman 1975; Tufekci 2008).

Therefore, in congruence with Exchange Theory (Homans 1958), the compromise that

users make about the information they share is relative to the level of privacy they wish

to risk.

THE FACEBOOK COMMUNITY

One of the reasons for the remarkable growth in online social networks is that

most are supported through a single interface where users can pursue a variety of tasks in

a single destination (Perotti 2011). The most widely visited of these online networks, and

the one from which the following study will be grounded on, is Facebook. The Facebook

website was introduced in 2004 as a way for college students to form and maintain virtual

relationships with users in the same college network. Members of the Facebook


18/63


18

community are allowed to share as much or as little information about their lives on a

personal space within a pre-established forum. As best described by Cheung, Chiu, and

Lee (2010), social networking sites such as Facebook are a collection of social spaces

that give people a place to share segments of their lives in words, pictures, and videos

with their friends.

Utilizing the enumerating features that it offers, members of the Facebook

community are able to identify themselves based on characteristics and interests that are

unique to them. They are encouraged to personalize their own profile page where they

can share information about themselves to other members of their community. They can

add friends to their social circle by sending or accepting requests from other users;

doing so permits extensive access to any information that is shared by members of that

sub-community. The social groups that are formed through the Facebook website can

congregate in a single place known as the newsfeed where all information shared by

members of the community can be observed in real-time. Additionally,friends in the

Facebook community can post comments on each others timeline, a feature that

allows them to publicly interact with each other based on the information that is shared.

One of the reasons why individuals choose to adopt Facebook is to create a sense

of identity that they have less control of in the offline. Members of Facebook formulate

their own identity based on comments, stories, and photographs that they contribute to

their own network; the information shared is construed as a relative representation of the

users character. A Facebook profile can therefore be understood as an independently

managed representation of the embodied self (Gershon 2011). For instance, users will

often turn to photographs to craft a portrait of an individuals identity. However, these


19/63


19

interpretations can be vastly dissimilar from the truth. Much like other information that is

shared through Facebook, photographs are often only a representation of what the owner

wants others to see.

Nevertheless, the ability to formulate a valued representation of themselves based

on the information they make available allows Facebook users to establish an identity

that is affirmed by ones peers (Livingstone and Brake 2010). These identity

experiments enables new opportunities for the presentation of the self, irrelevant of the

true nature that they embrace in the offline world (Livingstone and Brake 2010).

Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (2008) found that the most common motives for

constructed identities were self-exploration (to observe others reactions), social

compensation (to make up for shyness), and social facilitation (to form relationships).

Therefore, the changes incorporated between their real selves, and their Facebook selves,

offers them a unique opportunity to present themselves in new and divergent ways.

A CRITIQUE OF THE FACEBOOK COMMUNITY

Like any new invention or discovery, this recent addition to our social world

introduces novel risks to communal relationships. Socrates, whose antiquated

observations were critical of otherinnovations feared that writing, as a new technology,

threaten[ed] intimacy in the ways it alter[ed] relationships and knowledge circulates

(Gershon 2011:868). Because online interactions also lacks important characteristics that

are present in face-to-face communication, such as gestures and eye contact, it is argued

that online dialogue is less significant, harmful to the structure of human communication,

and has the opportunity to transmit its shortcomings to the offline world (Subrahmanyam

and Greenfield 2008).


20/63


21/63


21

unauthorized access to personal information by third parties damages the rapport a person

has with Facebook, and has potentially damaging consequences to the individual in the

offline world.

Already, an increasing number of users have begun to feel the repercussions of

their past choices. Ill-advised photos and information shared on Facebook come back to

haunt people months or years after the information was allegedly deleted (Rosen 2011).

Tufecki (2008) fears that this newfound invasion of privacy may lead employers to judge

interviewees on the basis of controversial interests that may seem risky to the company.

During his research Tufecki (2008) encountered several situations where firms refrained

from hiring students after finding inappropriate photographs that were uploaded on the

website years before. It is why Debatin et al. (2009) argue that Pervasive technology

often leads to unintended consequences such as threats to privacy and changes in

relationship between public and private spheres (83).

Despite all of the apparent violations to a users privacy and autonomy, the courts

have recurrently sided against the user in ruling that: we have no expectation of privacy

in data that we voluntarily surrender to third parties (Rosen 2011:2). Some argue that the

instant private information is shared with others online, the recipients become co-owners

of that information (Margulis 2003). It is up to the co-owners to negotiate if and how they

will conceal that information so that it remains private between the intended parties.

Therefore, the distinction between who is able to see, obtain, and use various bits of

information becomes blurred in the Facebook world (Houghton and Joinson 2010).

Furthermore, it seems that as Facebook becomes more deeply integrated into

users daily lives, issues of invasive privacy and excessive exposure become more


22/63


22

prominent, but less important to the individual (Debatin et al. 2009). Although many

Facebook members have privacy controls enacted, they do not seem to fully comprehend

that their level of privacy protection is relative to the size of their network, their criteria

for accepting new friends, and the amount of personal data they share (Debatin et al.

2009). Whether it is a result of social negotiations to exchange information, or a lack of

concern for its exposure, vast amounts of data is being shared through the Facebook

medium on a regular basis.

Regardless of its perceived notions to be a detriment to social life, Facebook has

become a setting for people to gather in one place at any time; in a matter of a few years

it has grown to an unprecedented 750 million users worldwide (U.S. Federal Trade

Commission 2011), and growing. As of 2010, one in 4 Internet browsers had a Facebook

account that they logged onto at least once every 30 days (Schwartz 2010). There are

more than 2.5 billion photos shared each month and more than 3.5 billion pieces of

content shared each week (Houghton and Joinson 2010; Facebook 2010). These

impressive numbers have helped Facebook to transcend the ranks of online activity to be

named the 5th

most visited website in the world in 2008 (Fuchs 2009), and accounting for

7% of all time spent online in 2009 (Houghton and Joinson 2010; Lipsman 2010).

Intriguing as these numbers are, little is known about the effects that online networking

sites such as Facebook are having on communities.

Based on the findings in the literature, it is possible to juxtapose the community

relations that occur on Facebook to the interactions that occur in other communities

around the world. Nevertheless, there have been numerous arguments about the influence

that this virtual community is having on the outside realm. Results from this qualitative


23/63


23

analysis determine that the Facebook community serves as a bridge between the virtual

and the real worlds. New communities and relationships are created through this

innovative interface and old communities are revisited. Additionally, Facebook functions

as a complement to weaker relationships that do not have the ability to interact as often in

the offline world. On the contrary, results are indicative of stronger relationships in the

offline being weakened because of Facebook; face-to-face interactions are becoming less

prevalent and much less intimate when the ease of communication through this medium

allows individuals to interact in an insipid setting. Additionally, the privacy of the

individual user is increasingly compromised as more information is shared.

The following study takes an exploratory approach utilizing the data from twelve

semi-structured interviews with undergraduate and graduate students from a northeastern

university. There is no question that sites like Facebook have transformed the way

humans formulate and envision communities. Using grounded theory methodology, we

use the interviews to extract meaning and determine the types of interaction that are

occurring on Facebook, how this medium solidifies communal ties, and the degree to

which these relationships are extending onto the offline realm. I will look at theories from

Castells (Social Network Theory), Homans (Social Exchange Theory), and Goffman

(Face-Work Theory) in order to determine if they are applicable to the Facebook

experience. I attempt to unify the individual experiences gathered here in this research,

and produce a more central model for which the Facebook community can be understood.

METHODOLOGY

The Facebook Community is a place where millions of individuals go to share

and relate stories with other members in society. However, despite its trending


24/63


24

popularity, the relative infancy of this networking site has left many to wonder how it is

affecting those who use it. Based on the literature already published on the subject, a

grounded theory approach was most appropriate in analyzing the function that the

Facebook experience is having on relationships and their communities. There are

numerous theories that have been linked to the processes that have resulted from

Facebook use, particularly Castells Social Network Theory, Homans Exchange Theory,

and Goffmans Face-Work Theory. This study analyzes how the aforementioned theories

are relative to the Facebook experience, and whether a better understanding can be met

after looking at them in unison. Using the analyses from twelve semi-structured

interviews, readers will be able to make their own conclusions in regards to the societal

functions that the utilization of Facebook has elicited.

SAMPLING STRATEGY

A total of twelve individuals were chosen to participate in this explanatory

research; six of the interviews were conducted in 2012 while the rest were conducted in

2013. Participants were located using a combination of convenience, purposive, and

theoretical sampling. Convenience sampling was necessary because the time in which the

research needed to be completed by was limited. Purposive sampling was useful so that

participants would be helpful in helping me understand the functions of the Facebook

experience. Lastly, I chose participants through theoretical sampling so that the data

gathered was more relevant to the theories being tested. While random sampling would

have been ideal for this project, the limited number of participants hindered its

possibility. Nevertheless, by focusing on a smaller and homogeneous sample, I was able

to ensure the highest validity possible.


25/63


25

Potential participants were found within one University campus in order to limit

the time spent looking for them. A general criterion for participation ensured the limits

and range that this study encompassed. While there was no age limit to partake in the

study, potential participants needed to be enrolled in a fulltime undergraduate or graduate

program, which resulted in a range of ages between 21-29; this semi-constrained sample

limited participation to those individuals that more likely lived their adolescence in the

presence of Facebook. Students were found in areas where they typically congregated

such as the student center, library or university cafeterias. Prior to invitation to

participate, the researcher confirmed that they were members of the Facebook community

and that they accessed the site on a regular basis. This was necessary so that the data

gathered from these individuals would be useful in the research analyses.

RESEARCH APPROACH

After determining their eligibility, potential research subjects were thoroughly

debriefed about the goals of the study and the manner in which it would be conducted. I

explained to them their rights as a research participant and answered any questions that

they may have had. A consent form was presented to them detailing the most important

points discussed so that she/he was aware of what the research entailed, and who to

contact if problems arose. I emphasized the point that participation was completely

voluntary and that they had the right to revoke their agreement to participate at any point

in time. While this disclaimer was necessary for Internal Review Board purposes, a

detailed discussion of the participants rights was helpful in developing a positive rapport

with the individual.


26/63


26

After agreement to participate was granted, participants of the study were allowed

to choose where they wanted to be interviewed. A natural setting is difficult to

conceptualize in this research because we were studying behaviors in a virtual rather than

physical environment. Nevertheless, I allowed the participants to choose a setting where

they felt most comfortable. This is especially important in qualitative research because

the primary data collected comes from a detailed discussion with the participant; if she/he

was not comfortable, they may not be forthcoming with the information they disclose.

Additionally, spatial and temporal flexibility ensured that the interview was conducted in

the most natural setting, without interruption.

DATA ANALYSIS

The primary data for this study was collected using face-to-face, semi-structured

interviews that were conducted with each participant; interviews were recorded using a

pre-established audio device. I took field notes about the participants non-verbal cues

that were useful in developing thick description from our conversations. Each interview

lasted between 30-45 minutes and consisted of topics that both the researcher and

participant felt were most importantthis mode of conversation also embraced

reciprocity. Additionally, an interview guide was used to help me and the participant

decide how to best allocate our time together. The semi-structured approach gave

flexibility so that the most relevant topics were discussed. However, if the interview

became stagnated by a lack of fluid conversation, the interview guide served as a point of

reference to go back to. The questions in the guide focused on understanding how

individuals conceptualize the Facebook paradigm and how the chosen theories relate to

their experience. The differences in questions asked between the interview sessions in


27/63


27

2012 and 2013 were minimal; only minor changes were made to the wording of the

questions so that they would elicit more thoughtful responses from the participants.

Each of the twelve interviews were transcribed verbatim and each participant was

assigned an alias in order to ensure anonymity. Transcriptions were analyzed through an

inductive approach by first coding specific themes into open categories. A constant

comparative method was utilized so that emerging categories could more effectively

distinguish and relate to the theories in question. Once these categories were established,

I used an axial coding paradigm to determine what parts of the data collected were most

important for analysis; particularly, I looked at the causal conditions influencing specific

processes in the Facebook community. Finally, I used selective coding to generate

suppositions of the most important issues concerning the participants experience and the

theories in question.

LIMITATIONS

There are a number of limitations that need to be discussed in regards to this

study. First off, time is a very important limitation that must be taken into account when

looking at the homogeneity of the sample. It is also unlikely that theoretical saturation

was reached due to the small number of participants. Like most qualitative studies, there

are issues concerning the validity and reliability of the research, primarily as a result of

the sample size. Nevertheless, maximum validity was ensured by focusing on a small

cohort of individuals in one university. By limiting the prospective sample of participants

there is a higher probability that the data collected is relevant to the specific cohort.

Additionally, the limited sample allows future researchers to do a comparative analysis


28/63


28

with other cohorts in order to determine whether this type of research may be expanded

or replicated with other populations.

There were minimal ethical issues in regards to this research; however, they

should still be discussed. The use of Facebook is so ubiquitous in todays society that its

level of sensitivity is relatively low. Nonetheless, the utmost precautions were taken in

order to protect the integrity of the participant. The privacy of a participant is always

prone to compromise in qualitative research. Sensitive information may be discussed

during the interview that a participant might prefer not to be made public. As a safeguard

to these issues, the data collected from the participants remained completely anonymous.

Additionally, the participant had the discretion to discontinue her/his participation at any

point in time during the research process. As an added precaution, each participant was

given the contact information of the lead investigator in case they had any concerns

regarding the research process. The precautions taken in this study mitigated the chance

of any potential ethical issues from coming up.

FINDINGS

Findings from this relatively small study found that the Facebook Community is

changing the way relationships form, congregate and even dissipate. Analyses of the

sociological theories showed that Facebook functions to propagate certain processes that

already occur in the real world, albeit in different ways. Nevertheless, it is my concluding

belief that more research needs to be done on this subject in order to come up with a more

unifying theory that explicates the experiences that Facebook has influenced. More

participants will be needed and more time allotted to research this intricate subject. Until


29/63


30/63


30

and because you know, I wanted to be on Facebook and everybody had a Facebook.

Felicia, a twenty-one year old sophomore in college, first joined in 2007 because:

I can see like whats going on in other peoples lives, I guess. Because of

all they put Everythingthey put everything on Facebook. So, I meanlike I see other peoples pictures and like, what theyre doing.

The growing propensity among high school and college students joining the online social

network and sharing their lives was a major influence in its growing popularity.

One of the aspects that seem to drive Facebooks popularity is the notion that it is

a community created and maintained by its own members. The groups formed in this

virtual world are as large or as small, as homogenous or heterogeneous as its own

members choose it to be. Furthermore, the ability to identify oneself based on unique

characteristics allows members to connect with each other based on mutual interests.

Kyle concurs that:

Maybe you can find who else likes that certain thing or certain place,

um pretty easily. Yea you can see who comments on it, or you

know, who frequents that page a lot or who frequents that place.

The vast information that is shared through this medium makes it easier for members of

Facebook to find others who share common characteristics. One of the main reasons that

George, 25, joined the Facebook community was that:

You can identify yourself by what high school youre fromor um

what college youre from. And its more dedicated to what you choose

your uh, affiliation is.

Facebook embraces a multifaceted setting where members can form virtual communities

based on their interests and background from their offline world. They can interact with

one another through the mutual sharing of experiences, opinions, and everyday

communication in one place, at any time.


31/63


31

INFORMATION HIGHWAY

Facebooks uncanny ability to gather vast amounts of information and share it

with its respective members is analogous to the network of interconnected nodes that

Castells (1996) expounds on in his Social Network theory (in Lemert 2010). On

Facebook this network of information isbest illustrated through its use of the news

feed. This unique feature allows members to stay up to date on any of the information

that is flowing through their virtual community. When looking through her own news

feed, Brittany, 28, will typically:

Scroll through and look until the last time that I was on Facebookofwhat everybody has put up and if there is a funny video link or something

I might click that and watch it... or read like comments that people have

said about something big or whatever; stuff that looks interesting.

Facebook members have the ability to observe in real-time what their friends are sharing,

as well as have access to prior postings that were shared while the user was offline.

The ability to easily share information with others from their own community

allows Facebook to be a source where people get a significant portion of their daily news.

Rebecca, 26, uses Facebook to keep tabs on what is going on around her because I dont

actually watch the news so Facebook gives me all of my world events that I need to

know. Additionally, because most of the information shared through Facebook comes

from friends, it is more likely to be of interest to those who look at it. George tailors his

interests to specific groups of friends by:

Keep[ing] everyone informed around me. I find certain articles and certain

things that I dont think my friends or family would typically see in their

day-to-day life that I actually look for. If I find it to be interesting Ill postit so that everyone else can see it.


32/63


32

Furthermore, once something has been shared within the community, the

Facebook interface allows members topublicly opine, or comment, on any of the

postings. Troy, 24, believes this is a useful tool to let all voices be heard on subjects of

debate:

Its kind of a new sourceyou get it from different angles and you get it

from different views. So one person might say something and then anotherperson might [say]yo, thats a lie this is how it went down!

The ability to credit or discredit what is being shared is an effective way to ensure that

those who see things have the chance to express their own views.

The types of interactions that occur on Facebook are rarely associated with the

virtual world itself. Instead, the most common types of exchanges that occur through this

medium are those concerning events that are happening in the real world. When asked to

give an example of how he has used Facebook to stay connected to members of his

offline community, George answered:

I guess responding to any kind of interesting things that my friends post,

or anything likefor example, my friend and his wifeshes pregnant, soshe posted the, I guess, the ultrasound on there and that was really cool.

And everybody gets to talk about the comment and like give

congratulations.

Members of this virtual community can go to a single place to stay informed about their

friends lives while simultaneously having the opportunity to interact.

The central hub for information that Facebooks interface embraces is not limited

to the individual interactions described above. Facebook is often used by outside

communities to keep its members more centrally informed. Through the use of

Facebooks like button, members can stay up to date on past and future activities that


33/63


33

other communities are involved in. Jessica, 23, uses the like button so that she can find

out about things happening around her university:

They put one for Relay for Life at [my school] so I know Im attending

that. Like that one in a sense is good because itll put like specific detailsthat I can always go to and see.

The facility of going to one place for all the necessary details makes it easier for Jessica

to participate in activities that she may not have known existed.

Likewise, members of Facebook can create their own sub-groups based on

communities that have been previously established in the offline world. George started up

a Facebook group so that people interested in a certain type of music would have a place

to go and interact with others of like-minded interests:

At my old school I formed the Ska Club. It was a group for people wholiked to listen to Ska music, right? And so basically I created a group on

Facebook for all the members of the group to use to communicate.

The imperceptible link between the real and virtual worlds is professed by the

interactions that begin in one place and end in another.

A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE REAL AND THE VIRTUAL

Castells (1996) says, Information is the key ingredient of our social organization

and [thats] why flows of messages and images between networks constitute the basic

thread of our social structure (in Lemert 2010:624). Members of the Facebook

community are able to amalgamate information with the real world because of the

relatively short bridge between the real and virtual in which information travels. The

types of interactions that occur in the Facebook community are thereby closely

interrelated with those that occur on the offline. Besides utilizing this social network as a

way to stay informed about things that interest them, individuals turn to Facebook to


34/63


34

complement the relationships they already possess in the offline; therefore, very often the

conversations that begin on Facebook continue in the real world. Jessica not only believes

that this flow of communication is beneficial in staying in touch, but also considers that:

Some of my best friends relationships have grown strongerbecause overFacebook. Well likefor example, there is a website, texts from last

nightand my friends and I like to read through it and find the ridiculous

ones we can find and well post them on each others Facebook wall. Andlike the next day well see each other and well be talking about like the

funniest ones and will be like our inside joke kind of thing, you know

So I think that like strengthens our relationship.

These forms of exchanges can be a useful way to support existing communities by

encouraging a consistent strand of interaction through a variety of communication

methods.

Nevertheless, interactions that begin in the real world and subsequently extend to

Facebook are also prevalent. George mentions an example of his friends communicating

on Facebook and consequently reinforcing the bond they share from being a part of the

same university:

Theyre always just like goofing around on another person or its one giant

group thread on someones wall talking about what someone did the other

day Someone did something stupid or someone said something funnyAnd theyll start ragging on each other. So its kind of likeI think its

kind of like beneficial maybe for them. Its just an extension of what

theyre doing. Its just a way to ahhkeep running jokes going, you

know?

Members of the Facebook community often use this medium to interact in group

conversations and reinforce their communal ties similar to the way it would be conducted

as if they were all present in the same room.

Furthermore, members can use Facebooks features as a facilitator to organize

social meetings that subsequently occur in the offline. Troy is part of a social club at his

university and uses its Facebook page to communicate and plan future events with them:


35/63


35

Im a part of the SOC club and they have a Facebook. And um you

know. So if youre doing somethingwe can go on the SOC club website

and say hey Friday night, were going to the movies and stuff like

that.

While these types of interactions are clearly feasible without the use of Facebook, it is the

possibility to network with a larger number of like-minded people, in one place, that

makes the exchanges in these communities more convenient and efficient.

Felicia benefits from the interfaces convenient way of communicating by using

another Facebook feature based on creating events. When asked if she had ever used the

events application to help her organize social meetings in the offline world, she said she

had used it twiceI used it for my birthday and for um, my boyfriends birthday.

Furthermore, she concurred that:

The event things are kind of cool because its like, you know its like

the old days, you know... youre writing out an invitation and you sendthem in the mail. You can just go on the computer and just send an event

thing.

Because Felicia lacked the time and resources to inform people in a more traditional

manner, she utilized Facebooks ability to get in touch with a large number of people to

organize events that would eventually occur in the offline.

Kyle is also a proponent of the event feature because its good for getting a lot of

information out there quickly to a lot of people. It allows more individuals to be

connected and relates the information needed to propagate meetings in the real world.

When asked whether he thought that Facebooks event application increased social

interaction in the real world, he opined:

I think it definitely adds to it. Um like I said, its a lot easier to gettogether with people when you ah when you have that communication

open where you can say, you know going here, you know making

plans to do this or do that Um, yea, it definitely makes it easier.


36/63


36

The ability to bridge the interactions that occur between the real and virtual worlds is

significantly beneficial to those trying to reinforce their bond with other communities in

the offline. Nevertheless, the benefit of staying connected with members of real world

communities is not the only benefit that Facebook offers. Employing comparable

features, members of Facebook can revisit old communities that are no longer in

existence but were at one time as closely bonded as those aforementioned.

REVISITING OLD COMMUNITIES

The ability to connect vast amounts of people and communities in one single

network also facilitates the likelihood for old communities to be revisited and

reestablished. Rebecca enjoys this feature because:

I like it when you find someone that you havent heardlike you havecompletely forgotten about for like years and years, and then you find

them and then youre like, Oh sweet, lets be Facebook friends, and like,

just keep up on each others lives.

Members of the Facebook community take advantage of its aggregate population to

reconnect with old communities that are no longer accessible.

Felicia welcomes the ability to join a Facebook group that is restricted to

members of her old high school. It will say like, um tell me how many people from

my high school are online. So I mean, it would help me if I wanted to search for them.

Additionally, Jessica believes that Facebook groups established from past communities

can be rewarding to the individual who embrace them:

That does really helpbecause then, I feel like a lot of people lose touch

with friends after they graduate high schooland even after Im gonna

graduate college sooneven after I graduate college Ill lose touch withsome of my friends; whereas Facebook you can stillits sort of like

snail mail upgraded. And you can still keep in contact with them and I

think that helps.


37/63


37

The accessibility to a wide population of people on the Facebook community makes it

possible for old communities to be reestablished and sustained.

Furthermore, Kyle often uses Facebooks massive directory of contacts to find

people that he once frequently saw but has since lost touch with:

Youll be like oh, remember this or that person and you can try to look

them up or if you actually know their nametheir full nameyea, youcan try to look them up and maybe, you know, rekindle something that

could have happened or somebody that you lost contact with a while back.

And yea, it could make it easier to um make contact with them.

Based on this ongoing web of connections, Facebook groups can be formed or conjoined

to eventually create virtual communities based on the mutual interests that they share

with other members.

Nevertheless, if its not possible to join or form such pre-established groups,

members like Linda, 25, still use Facebook to reconnect with old friends and revitalize

old relationships:

Theres a friend that I went to like from kindergarten to fifth grade in allmy classes together and then we lost touch and he found me on Facebook.

He lives by like Albany now which is really far but he goes back to theBronx once in a while so were actually planning to meet up this month,which is really crazy because we were really good friends back there

back then.

Linda acknowledges that she uses Facebook to keep in contact with people that I dont

see as often. People that I used to go to school with when I was in New York or when I

lived in Boston Just people that I dont see ever now actually. The presence of

Facebook allows her to reestablish old relationships through the virtual world thereby

increasing the probability that an offline interaction will eventually occur.

SUPPORTING WEAK RELATIONSHIPS


38/63


38

Whether it is old communities being reestablished or friends and family that are

not seen as prevalently, Facebook has an intricate way of supporting weak relationships

and at times making them stronger; it accomplishes this using the same methods and

features that connect and reinforce present and past communities. George believes that

its a good way to stay in touch with acquaintances that you normally wouldnt want to

hang out with because its like a quick, easy, and dirty way of staying in touch with

somebody. Felicia uses the notifications she receives on her Facebook page about

birthdays to send quick acknowledgments:

I wouldnt say best friends because I know like all my good friendsbirthdays. But if its somebody like I went to high school with that I

havent talked to in a while, oryea, pretty much somebody that I

havent talked to in a while and, oh whats their birthday? And Ill say

happy birthday.

If it were not for these notifications it is possible that Felicia would never have

remembered certain birthdays and an interaction may have never occurred. Instead,

Felicia concurs that these quick messages often lead to more extensive conversations like

when am I going to see you or when are we gonna getto get together And well try to

make arrangements to hang out.

Furthermore, Jessica agrees that Facebook can be used to as a way to complement

weak relationships with friends that at one point were stronger:

Im in New Haven right now and Im from Wallingford so I cant alwayslike, see themwhereas on Facebook I can send them a little message

now and then and you know, thinking of youhope everything is going

well And then we can start a conversation from there and it helps mekeep in touch by just sending them little messages.

Despite the current distance between her and her hometown friends, Jessica is able to

keep in touch with them so that their relationship does not suffer once she returns. On the


39/63


39

contrary, her relationships may become stronger because of her determination to stay

connected with those friends that were no longer a part of her everyday life.

The ability to stay up to date on the lives of members who share weaker

relationships also stimulates stronger interactions once the individuals see each other

again. During the interview session, Kyle admits that he has many friends on Facebook

who he does not see very often; however, he recounts that:

Certain people that you really dont talk to a lot if you see randomly out

somewhere you can say, hey, I saw that you did this or that. It could be agood conversation starter. Um, yea, it can make communication a little bit

easier between friends that arent so close that um you can gain

information like that, that you normally wouldnt if you didnt see themthat often.

The ability to stay informed within the Facebook community therefore cultivates an

environment where weak relationships can be sustained and consequently reinforced.

Friends are not the only types of weak relationships that can be strengthened in

the midst of using Facebook; families living far from each other are able to keep in touch

regardless of the distance between them. Jessica, who has a relative living in Japan, is

unable to maintain frequent contact because of course the hours she is awake are the

hours that are different then when Im awake. Nevertheless, when asked how her

relationship has changed since she became friends with her on Facebook, she answered:

I feel a bit more updated with her life. She puts up picturesactually,

even though its a warm and gorgeous day out right now, they had asnowstorm. They have like eight feet of snow right now in Japan. So

but I know that because of her Facebook and because she puts up pictures,

so I feel likeI do feel somewhat connected to her more than I did whereif I didnt have Facebook.

The ability to see what is happening in her relatives life makes Jessica feel more

attached to her far away family member.


40/63


40

Linda, whose family lives in Ecuador and sees very seldom also shares the

mindset that being friends through Facebook can further strengthen a weakened

relationship. When asked to describe the way in which she might stay in contact with

distant family through Facebook, she answered:

My cousins actuallythey all friend requested me so they like write me

on there. Um my grandfathers stepdaughterwe keep in touch throughthere. Hell show her shell show my grandfather my pictures through

there and stuff. My cousins from Ecuador we only see other not even like

once a year so we keep in touch through there a lot.

Without the accessibility or convenience of Facebook it would be harder for Linda and

her family from Ecuador to see each other, even if only through pictures. The small but

significant interactions that occur through the Facebook medium help support weak

relationships regardless of the distance between them.

Families that arent as far away as Linda or Jessica can also benefit from the use

of Facebook. The fast paced society that Kyle spoke of earlier has led to the

disappearance of the dinner table conversations that once dominated American society.

As a way to supplement their decreasing presence, Jeffery, 26, and his family have found

more innovative ways to keep in contact with one another:

We have a family group with my family so its likeits a privategroupbut its like my mom, my dad, and my sisters. So we post on

that pretty much like every daywhat were doingand keep in touch

with everyone were always doing different stuff so it helps keep

everyone keep contact without having to individually call or text.

The ability to stay in contact with one another sustains the familial relationship that was

likely present when Jeffery and his siblings were younger but has since dissipated upon

becoming adults.

THE IMPAIRMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS


41/63


41

One of the leading counterarguments, in recent time, against any new form of

communication is that it decreases the prevalence of face-to-face interaction. As more

individuals turn to Facebook as a way to stay connected to family and friends, critics

dispute the ramifications it has on communities in the offline world. When asked about

this phenomenon and whether he considers it a latent consequence of interacting through

Facebook, Kyle says:

I mean, as far as getting instant access to people and getting information

out there instantlyits a benefit. Um but yea, it could replace a lot ofpeoples normal everyday interaction if theyre doing it all over the line,

you know and yea, I mean it could affect the way people

communicate and theyre doing a lot less face to face talking and lot morecommunicating over the Internet, soit could definitely affect it a lot.

Despite the ease and convenience of communication that the use of Facebook expends on

society, it is disputable that the time spent interacting online takes away from more

relevant interactions in the offline world. Some members like Linda have mixed opinions

in regards to the overall benefit that Facebook has on relationships:

Well I think the only positive thing really about Facebook is that you getto keep in touch with people that you normally wouldnt. But I feel like it

takes away more then it adds because its like people who I could see

everydayyou dont anymorebecause we just talk on Facebook. Well,do you want to hang out? For what, we can have a conversation on

Facebook.

Just as it has become an easy and convenient way of interacting with people from far

away communities, the degree of separateness that is found in these interactions is

extending to relationships that may not necessarily benefit from them. Brittany thinks

You dont need to go like meet someone for drinks cuz you feel like you know

everything thats going on with them already from Facebook. Because vast amount of

information is already being shared publicly on Facebook individuals find it less relevant

to convene and catch up on each others lives.


42/63


42

In fact, sharing too much information about oneself may bring its own

consequences. One of the latent functions of this excess of information is that it becomes

convoluted and people become disinterested. Perry, 28, enjoys hearing about his friends

lives but certainly gets annoyed sometimes when they post something about how their

day is going and you hear about it every daywe really dont need to know your life

story. Additionally, knowing too much information makes more personal interaction

irrelevant for him, even with people he hasnt seen in a long time:

When you see someone you havent seen in ten yearsbut you see them

on Facebook everydayits like,yea I know all about you cuz you freakin

post everything everyday about your life! So even though you personallyhavent seen someone in so longyou know everything about them.

Now that Perry has learned all about his friends life on Facebook, he has less interest in

pursuing an interaction any further then what has occurred online.

Therefore, one of the main issues that arise with Facebooks ease of

communication is irrelevant of the interactions that happen within longer distances;

instead, it is the individuals who are in close proximity and choose Facebook as a

principle way of communicating. George, who denies ever using Facebook to

communicate with people that he can see face to face relates a story of one of his

neighbors who fall under this paradigm:

Emilyright next door and Peter who lives over thereand theyll

message on Facebook a lot. So I feel like that relationship is being affected

by it. Im not saying its negative or positiveIm just saying, when theycan just come over and talk to one another. Ive seen people like Facebook

someone when theyre in the same room, and thats just funny to me.

It is unclear whether George contends the strength of his neighbors relationship as a

result of these interactions; nevertheless, it is evident that conversations on Facebook


43/63


44/63


44

than taking time and calling them, and interacting over the phone, I could easily really

fast just send them a messagewhen theyre available they can get back to me. It is the

speed and convenience of these short messages that are conceptualized to be an inhibitor

of more personalized communication between individuals. Likewise, Carlos, 25, doesnt

believe these messages hold any personality; Facebook is more likehey, what are you

up to? I really dont have time to actually really talk to u. While Facebook is often

credited for connecting people from all corners of the world, its lack of energy does little

to propagate these conversations to anything beyond the chat window in which it takes

place.

Some of these short and sweet messages that have been defended on the basis of

strengthening weak relationships also have the propensity to deter more intimate

interactions. The convenience of being reminded about friends birthdays and

subsequently congratulating them through a Facebook message may be quick and easy;

however, as George explains, it takes away from the personalization of the message:

You might be more inclined to just likehappy birthdayvia Facebook

rather than actually calling them and telling them that, which is more

personal. Id rather be called on my birthday and sayhey, happybirthdayrather than someone messaging me. Its still nice; its the

thought that counts. But, you know everyoneyou do realize that its

way easier to just clickhappy birthdaythen to calling someone.

The notion that human interactions are becoming less personal and are being replaced by

characterless messages is frequently considered one of the downsides of Facebook. Perry

argues that:

Its just easier especially everyone with a freaking fancy phone you can

{taps the table} type here or there, send done you talk to the person in

matter of seconds [but] its through a computer. You can say whateveryou want on a computer and have no strength to it, you know?


45/63


46/63


46

the true meaning behind those words. Despite Kyles affirmation for the benefits of

communication over Facebook, he considers it to be:

Less intimate. I mean, its notits not as direct as having a normal

conversation. Um like I said, you can take your time and write outexactly what youre trying to say, but its hard to convey emotions. A lotof times its hard to express what youre really feeling through typing, you

know. Certain types of emotions its hard to like convey through text. Its

hard toyou know, you cant show sarcasm through text but sometimesitsit can be taken the wrong way or can be misinterpreted by

depending on whose reading it.

The misinterpretation of words that Kyle speaks of is precisely the consequences that can

result from this type of impassive communication.

Because emotion is typically enforced by the use of body language, online

communications between members on Facebook can often be misconstrued. Casey, 25,

has a really hard time dealing with this on Facebook because:

The only way I can see emotion is kind of how people word thingsand

my thought process on how they word things might be different then

actually how theyre saying it, cuz I can interpret completely different

This problem may be alleviated somewhat

facebook community: a new place for friends, sharing stories, and changing the way people...

Documents