Independent Research Project

Just a simple status update?

Ben Anderson, Wednesday 3:30 Tutorial, Student # 3878624

Facebook is one of the most significant services to emerge over the past few years, providing mechanisms for individuals throughout the world to communicate and interact with one another via the internet. Social media is almost imperative in modern society for individuals to remain in contact with one another, making up a significant portion of daily communication between people. Facebook, as a vast social networking and interactional mechanism, has given rise to a variety of significant social phenomena which are of great interest to sociologists. This essay will examine a piece of data taken from Facebook, and interpret it under a sociological light. It will initially discuss the data and explore Facebook as a society with its own norms and rules, before going on to discuss the notion of symbolic interactionism, looking at the ‘like’ button and how the meaning of this action changes according to context. It will then go on to discuss who this links in to identities, both in the physical and virtual worlds, as well as providing an application of Goffman’s dramaturgy metaphor, all with reference to the following piece of data:

 Original Location of Data

     This particular data is an official statement made by Woolworth’s supermarket on their Facebook page. The announcement is in relation to the Alan Jones controversy and how Woolworths were to withdraw all advertising sponsorship from the program to demonstrate their disagreement with his statements. The data also displays a selection of comments that were made on the announcement by individual Facebook users, as well as the tallies of the number of people who ‘liked’ the announcement, those who ‘liked’ the individual comments, as well as those who shared the announcement in their own Facebook profiles. The various comments have formed into some sort of discussion in regards to the controversy, which has then invited various political debates, as well as talk on the topic of bullying. It is worth noting that Woolworths does have the option to delete comments, however there has been no deletion since the initial capture of this data. Further, for basic privacy I have censored the last name of the people involved in this interaction, however I will provide the link to the actual announcement on Facebook.

     The announcement and comments from the Woolworths page were chosen as they demonstrate several interesting aspects of social media. It clearly shows the use of the ‘like’ and ‘share’ features on Facebook, the role of businesses and marketing on Facebook, as well as interactions between strangers which has evolved into debate, which is ultimately breaking a social norm. It is further evident in this data the formation of various sides; however, the overall power in the situation is retained by Woolworths social media team, as at any given moment they can intervene. The two sides can be categorised into those who support Woolworths’ action on Alan Jones, and those who do not, however, there are further political divisions evident. Voicing their frustrations with the announcement there is Andrew F (the one with two people in his picture) and Jezza, while the others are in support of the statement being made, for this essay I will focus mainly on the characters of Andrew F and Luke, as they are the most engaged within the conversation. Further, others, both who are involved and not involved in the actual discussion, have demonstrated their support for each comment made through pressing the ‘Like’ button.

     A particularly interesting feature about this data is its setting, in that Facebook is almost a virtual society with its own sets of rules, regulations and social norms. From Garfinkel’s breaching experiments Heritage (1984, p. 83) says that rules and social norms do not derive from morality or tradition, but “if conduct cannot be interpreted in accordance with the rules, the social organization of a set of ‘real circumstances’ simply disintegrates.” Further, Kameda et al (2005, p. 334) conclude that social norms emerge to ensure successful coexistence. Applied to Facebook, we can see that there are both explicit and implied rules, with a statement of “community standards” existing which relates to issues such as violence, threats, self-harm, bullying, hate speech, graphic content, privacy, nudity and pornography, intellectual property and spam (Facebook, 2012). In terms of the implicit rules, it is evident that various groups of people have norms of how they communicate, this could include the definition of a like, when and who to contact, or in the circumstances of the data, how to respond to an argument, and what it means to like someone’s statement. Cross (2012), goes as far to list a variety of different ‘implicit’ rules which can be observed when communicating with others on Facebook:

 

1. I should expect a response from this person if I post on his/her profile

2. I should NOT say anything disrespectful about this person on Facebook

3. I should consider how a post might negatively impact this person’s relationships.

4. If I post something that this person deletes, I should not repost it.

5. I should communicate with this person outside of Facebook.”

Some further discussion on these implicit norms can be found here.

It is evident that in these interactions that there are many implicit social breaches taking place, in that these are complete strangers arguing. Further, this is taking place in a public arena for all to see and these people are seemingly using their real names. However, this is demonstrative of how the internet has changed general social norms, but it is still generally not acceptable to argue in such a fashion on Facebook, especially if it is in an incorrect forum, such as the Woolworths wall.

     What is particularly unique to many social media services, including Facebook, is the notion of the ‘like’ button, and tally associated with it. The meaning of the ‘like’ button is highly variable, and should not be observed at face value. The ‘like’ feature is demonstrative of a ‘social object’ which Blumer (1969, p. 68), says “consist[s] of whatever people indicate or refer to.”  This substantiates that objects are given their meaning by what others seem to attribute significance to (Charon, 2007, p. 46; Roberts, 2006, p. 48), bringing up the idea of symbolic interactionism in relation to the meaning of language. At the conversational level it is evident that the ‘Like’ feature is attributed the meaning of agreement, for example, in this comment:

In this particular comment, ‘Luke’ has received 11 likes, and comparatively, Andrew F has received 3 likes. Upon further inspection, one can review who has actually ‘liked’ the comment, and the following came up:

It is evident that a different group of people liked Andrew’s comment to that of Luke’s, which indicates the formation of opposing sides, even by those who are not actively communicating within the conversation. This could consequently change the meaning of the initial social object, that is, the like button, in that they may be liking the opposing comments to demonstrate their disagreement with the opposing side, rather than attempting to show their agreement with the comment being made because a ‘dislike’ button is not present. On further analysis, it is evident that ‘liking’ the actual announcement by Woolworths is demonstrative of agreement with the statement, or possibly acknowledgement of what is being said. A further variation of the meaning of the ‘like’ button is the Woolworths page itself. People can ‘like’ the page and this can indicate a number of interactions, for example, one may want to be in contact with the supermarkets marketing team, or they may want to let everyone know that they shop at Woolworths and this is part of who they are, which leads in to the idea of the ‘like’ button, Facebook and mediated identities.

The ‘like’ given to someone could be thought of as a reference point for approval of one’s identity, which could see the establishment of something along the lines of an attention economy. This fits Cooley’s ‘looking-glass self’ idea which details that one defines the self through reference to how others see oneself (Robinson, 2007, pp. 94-95). Cooley states that one does this by viewing oneself from another’s point of view through looking at ones “appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character friends, and so on” (1902, p. 17). In terms of the data from the Woolworths Facebook page, it could be said that some of the commenters are knowingly making comments in the public forum simply as a way to secure an aspect of their identity. The like button, in this situation, would be a way for the individual to gauge their acceptance by others, and quantify how others see them in order to define their own self, and see if this leads to a ‘coincidence of placement and announcement’. As the like button quantifies the particular interactions, the number can then be compared to others which then allow one to place them in a ranking as to where they fit in in their reference group or in society as a whole. For example, the comments by Andrew may have simply been made so that he could gain reassurance of his sense of self. Consequently, this further demonstrates how variable the like button is in terms of a social object.

Moving on to the actual text in the data, it is evident that when combined with the ‘like’ feature, it contributes to one’s identity. Stone (1981, p. 188) says that the construction of identity relates to three main activities: “Identity announcement”, “identity placement” and a “coincidence of placements and announcements”. In looking at Andrew’s comments, we can see that he is making an announcement that he can speak up, is opposed to the ‘bullying’ of Allan Jones, and determines his political stance through expressing a disliking of Julia Gillard:

So in terms of making an ‘identity placement’ one could categorise Andrew as outspoken, politically unsupportive of the Labor party, and an avid listener to the Allan Jones radio show. It would also be possible to click through to Andrew’s or any of the other participant’s profiles to further aid in ones placement of these identities, but this presents to us the issue of mediation in regards to identify formation and identification. For example, Goffman (1959) says that in constructing and reading an identity one can use the physical settings and a ‘personal front’, however in an online environment this is almost impossible. This idea is further reiterated by Zhao et al (2008, pp. 1817-1818) who says that the disembodiment made allowable through mediated communication relinquishes the ability of one to assess the individual’s physical appearance and other key characteristics. Stone (1996) and Turkle (1995) further say that this form of identity production allows people to “play-act” at being someone different to their usual self, allowing one to cover any flaws and produce a more desirable personality. So referring back to the data, we do not even know if any of these profiles are real, and this brings about the idea that a successful identity reading could only take place in the physical world, however, Goffman has detailed the idea that we have multiple identities, and the various ones on exhibit in the data could just be one of those of the participants.

Further analysis of the data can come from Goffman’s (1971) concept of dramaturgy, which uses the theatrical stage as a metaphor for analysis of interactions. In applying Goffman’s (1971) metaphor to this data, it does require some careful thought, in that it was originally composed with reference to physical interaction and internet mediated communication often rids communication of the ‘setting’ which Goffman says includes things such as “furniture, décor, physical layout and other background items” (1971, p. 32). Nevertheless, the setting could be changed to mean the actual space in which the conversation is carried out, and that is the Woolworth’s page and announcement, which is subsequently also the ‘front’ in this interaction, which is denoted by the “public” button, indicating it can be viewed by absolutely anyone:

This means that all the conversation and likes are presented to anyone and, whether the participants know it or not, the interactions are offered up in the construction of their identities. In moving on to the feature of the backstage in the data, which Goffman (2010, p. 204) defines as a place where “costumes and other parts of personal front may be adjusted and scrutinized for flaws’, it is evident that this includes the physical person, as well as all the information that is hidden, such as that only available to friends of the participants. This idea further exhibits area where further study can be undertaken to learn more about mediated identities and what it means for society.

The interactions that have taken place in this seemingly simple everyday Facebook communication have yielded some interesting sociological analysis. Mediated interaction and the associated features with this form of communication have demonstrated some new, interesting social phenomena that take place, such as the ‘like’ button. Further, the notion of identity strongly relates to the social phenomena, and presents potential for further interesting research into the area and how it impacts on interaction and the formation of identity.

 

References

Blumer, H, 1969, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall

Charon, J.M, 2007, Symbolic Interactionism: An introduction, An interpretation, An Integration, 9^th edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall

Cooley, C.H, 1902, Human nature and the social order, New York, C. Scribner's Sons, accessed 30^th October 2012, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t2k64cp4n

Cross, A, 2012, ‘Revealing the unwritten, and often complicated, rules of Facebook etiquette’, National Post, 1^st May, accessed 25^th October 2012, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/revealing-the-unwritten-and-often-complicated-rules-of-facebook-etiquette/

Facebook, 2012, accessed 25^th October 2012, https://www.facebook.com/woolworths/posts/400380796700724

Facebook, 2012, Community Standards, accessed 25^th October 

Goffman, E, 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York, Doubleday

Goffman, E, 1971, 'Performances', in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 28-82

Goffman, E, 2010, ‘Presenting the self in social life’, in Giddens, A & Sutton, P.W (eds.), Sociology: Introductory Readings, 3^rd Edition, Cambridge, Polity Press

Heritage, J, 1984, ‘The morality of cognition’, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 75-102

Kameda, T, Takezawa, M & Hastie, R, 2005, ‘Where do social norms come from? The example of communal sharing’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 331-334

Roberts, B, 2006, ‘Symbolic Interactionism 2: developments’, in Micro Social Theory, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 46-61

Robinson, L, 2007, ‘The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age’, New Media & Society, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 93-110

Stone, G, 1981, ‘Appearance and the self: a slightly revised version’, in Stone, G & Faberman, H.A (eds.), Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, 2^nd edition, New York, Wiley, pp. 187-202

Turkle, S, 1995, Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet, New York, Simon & Schuster

Zhao, S, Grasmuck, S and Martin, J, 2008, ‘Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 24, pp. 1816-1836