Tomorrow, a group of my colleagues and myself will be in Frostburg, MD to present at a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Maryland Communication Association. The focus of this discussion is to unpack O'Sullivan's notion of masspersonal communication and apply the concept to understanding the influence of social media technologies in a variety of different communication environments. I'm going to try and live-tweet the conversation using the #masspesonal hashtag but I imagine I'll be too entrenched in the conversation to access my phone. Of course, this doesn't have to stop you from sending over questions and comments. Post feedback below or with the #masspersol hashtag (I'm at @bowmanspartan), and we'll look to answer emerging questions together. And if you're in the region, we hope to see you there! [map]
2011 Maryland Communication Association Conference
Roundtable Discussion: “Masspersonal Communication: Negotiating the Personal, Political, and Civil”
Moderator: Lori E. Vela, West Virginia University
Nick Bowman, West Virginia University
C. J. Claus, West Virginia University
John Lombardi, Frostburg State University
Elesha L. Ruminski, Frostburg State University
David Westerman, West Virginia University
This roundtable will begin with an introduction of the topic of masspersonal communication and move to discussion of interpersonal privacy, surveillance, and legal issues surrounding “personal,” “public,” and “mass” uses of social media as well as political correctness and civility in online postings. The question of censorship (self and imposed) will be discussed, with this central question under debate: “Does anything go with social networking?”
“Smallville – Population: 6,000,000,000”
Nicholas David Bowman, West Virginia University
Recent data from the Pew Charitable Trusts has suggested social media to play a binding role in society – drawing individuals together rather than separating them. While not surprising to those individuals accustomed to the ‘wired life’, these data might come as a surprise to those subscribing to Putnam’s assertions that mediated technologies have causes us to lose much of our social capital – a thought echoed to some extent by anecdotal evidence of the technology “geeks” as a socially-awkward and isolated lot. My discussion will focus on the binding role of today’s Web 2.0 technology, drawing on recent empirical and anecdotal evidence (such as the Arab Spring uprisings and the London riots) to explain how communication technology has drawn us closer perhaps than ever before.
“Masspersonal Communication within the College Classroom: The Tension between Instructor and Student Use of Facebook”
C.J. Claus, West Virginia University
The current college student has expectations that college instructors will use at least some form of technology during their courses (Witt & Schrodt, 2006), so long as the incorporation of such technology is relevant to the course objectives (Lane & Shelton, 2001). Given the prevalence of social media within the college population, certain instructors have begun to shift their mediated communication with students from e-mail to Facebook. However, Facebook, is mainly a social website designed to establish and maintain personal relationships and although instructors could use the site to provide information about the course, do students even want to be friends with their instructors? Furthermore, this channel is an excellent example of O’Sullivan’s concept of “Masspersonal” communication, where both private and public messages are manipulated. Thus, students have to then navigate and decide what content is posted for everyone to see and what content should be concealed. Depending upon how weak their security settings are, instructors could inadvertently stumble across information that is highly personal, not related to school, and result in a damaged image of the student. On the other hand, at the point that students block everything from their professors (i.e., status updates and photos), then how does this channel become any more effective or useful than e-mail or BlackBoard?
“Is the Medium Still the Message?”
John Lombardi, Frostburg State University
Perhaps lost in the discussion of the uses of social networking and where it fits academically or even hierarchically is the issue of the medium itself. The concept of “mass” communication is not necessarily tied to the number of recipients. Instead it’s generally from whom the message is sent and how the message is accessed that determine whether the communication is “mass.” The definition of mass communication presented by Baran and Davis (2009) is generally accepted: “When an organization employs a technology as a medium to communicate with a large audience, mass communication is said to have occurred” (p. 5). However, as technology changes it is becoming more possible to target messages to specific individuals. As such the issue of a “large audience” becomes more ambiguous. Of additional concern, though, is the issue of access. Generally speaking “mass communication” messages are reasonably accessible. Most social networking messages lie behind some type of barrier (generally the need to both subscribe to the service and become directly associated with the person creating the message). Within the social networking framework it is generally not possible for someone to simply happen upon a message. As such social networking should be viewed as a personal forum. Civility is not a requirement, at least no more than it is in any other part of our day-to-day lives.
“Situating Me and You (and I and Thou) within the Social Networking Transformation of the Public Sphere(s)”
Elesha L. Ruminski, Frostburg State University
With the rise and prevalence of social networking sites as primary communication channels, marketing forums, and virtual social communities today, we need more textured, ethical understandings of the theoretical and practical interdisciplinary intersection of mass communication, public communication, and interpersonal communication. Critical within this emerging “masspersonal” convergence is the study and application of interpersonal and public sphere ethics and “virtual civility”; drawing on Habermas’s proposals about the transformation of the public sphere and Buber’s impersonal-interpersonal construct of it-you-thou, social networkers might better be able to consider how they situate the self as embedded within multiple publics within the presence of many known and unknown “others.” An assignment that helps students explore how self is perceived, presented, and situated in relation to others within various publics within social networking sites will be shared.
“Masspersonal Communication: What is It, and Why Does it Matter??”
David Westerman, West Virginia University
O'Sullivan has recently discussed the concept of "Masspersonal" communication, suggesting that traditional lines of demarcation in the communication discipline (i.e., mass vs. interpersonal) have been surpassed by the technologies we use for this communication. In other words, many of our newer technologies (although past ones allowed this as well) allow people to use "mass" channels for "interpersonal" communication and vice versa. Thus, O'Sullivan points out that newer divisions may be more fruitful to consider, such as public vs. private interactions. This public vs. private dialectic is one that many people have to navigate today. Walking this tightrope will be discussed, as many people seem to fail at this navigation.
Thursday 13 October 2011
Monday 10 October 2011
Position Paper: When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the new Digitalengemeinschaft
In advance of the 2011 Urban Communication Foundation in New Orleans, myself and co-author Lori Vela (doctoral student, West Virginia University) are posting our position paper, "When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the new Digitalengemeinschaft" [also available for download here]. Here's the abstract, full paper to follow the bump:
From the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution to Putman’s (1995; 2000) infamous “Bowling Alone” hypothesis, there has been an assumption among scholars that urban communities feature collections of isolated individuals – that is, dense populations with few and weak social bonds between people. Media scholars invoke Tönnies (1887) concept of Gessellschaft to explain mass audiences with little in common but their shared media experiences, and this assumption is at the foundation of many classic theories of mass communication such as agenda-setting and cultivation theory. In a Gessellschaft, media is thought to hold influence on individuals due to its pervasiveness, consistency, and importance in their daily lives as a sole source of information and leisure, as these individuals lack of interpersonal bonds with others is thought to strengthen media’s potential effect on them. Perhaps most associated with Putnam (1996), this isolationist approach to media has been challenged recently as the popularity of social media continues to rise. The new social media appears to serve as a binding rather than individualizing force, as it features users collaborating and creating content to share with one another – in many ways, helping us reconnect with our past social ways (cf. Christakis & Fowler, 2009). In the new “publish first, filter second” paradigm, media users are increasingly serving as producers and consumers of their own unique content, and this process is playing out globally, particularly in urban areas as witnessed by recent political unrest in major Arab capitals and, more recently, similar civic actions in San Francisco, London, and Philadelphia. This paper will discuss the implications of increased social media adoption in understanding how information is created and shared – suggesting the presence of a Digitalegemeinschaft, or a society bonded through social media and reminiscent of the close-knit Gemeinschaft of older times. Our paper further argues that social network serves to bond otherwise-detached urban communities, and this bonding can have a profound effect on civic engagement by cultivating an environment by which information is delivered to the masses from the masses.
When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the demise of Gessellschaft
Traditional views of the role of media in society have focused on its individualizing role. The earliest theories of media effect assumed strong, universal and direct effects of messages on individuals due to the weakness of individuals’ connections to one another in the new Gessellschaft –the densely-populated-yet-socially-isolated urban environment (cf. Tönnies, 1887). Although this “magic bullet” paradigm (cf. Lowery & DeFleur, 1995) has long since been rejected by media scholars, concerns about the individualizing effects of media on society have remained. For example, Putnam’s (1995a; 1995b) displacement hypothesis argues that media – particularly television (as a dominant form of traditional media) – tends to privatize leisure time in deference to engaging in more social activities resulting in an erosion of civic engagement and an increase in social isolation.[1] Yet, emerging anecdotal and empirical data suggest the assumption of media as an individualizing force to be a flawed one, and instead has argued for the binding role of media – particularly social media – in bringing us together more in line with Tönnies’ (1887) notion of Gemeinschaft, or community of close-knit individuals marked by a “unity of will”(pp. 22). Recent research (Jennings & Zeitner, 2003; Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001;) has reported positive associations between increased Internet usage and several indicators of civic engagement such as increased social capital. Particularly with Facebook, work by Valenzuela, Park and Kee (2009) reported a positive relationship between intense Facebook use and civic engagement among college students, and Leung (2009) found that users who generate their own content felt more empowered in their civic engagement off-line.[2]
A better understanding of social media’s functionality might offer an explanation for these patterns. Shirkey (2008; 2010) noted that social media technology has ushered in a media system in which we collaborate in the creation and sharing of content rather than passively consume it in isolation. Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) suggest communication technology to strengthen rather than weaken our participation in society, finding through survey research that individuals online are more engaged in their communities than those offline. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence points to the role of social media in fanning the flames of political uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia as well as other Arab nations – the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 – as individuals with similar ideas were able to circumvent traditional media controls to collaborate and share messages of revolution through new media channels.[3] Taking these arguments in sum and conceptualizing our past Gemeinschaft with our present Gessellschaft, we argue that while mediated communication channels may distance us physically, their function draw us closer both socially and psychologically, and we suggest implications for this new Digitalegemeinschaft at the theoretical and applied level. We argue that social media has ushered in a demise of the isolated society and the (re)birth of a digitally-connected one.
Media as an Individualizing Force
Traditional media has often been chided for its role in the demise of social capital and civic engagement. Putnam (1995a,b) argued for the individualizing role of television viewing in his infamous “Bowling Alone” treatise, suggesting that while the average American has experienced an increase in leisure time, this time has been filled using forms of media that isolate them from one another. Shirkey (2010) similarly argued that the cognitive surplus experienced by individuals as a result of increased modernization (particularly in the workplace, where the average work week has fallen from 80 hours in the late 1800s to less than 35 today; Cettron & Davies, 1989) resulted in a reliance – not a dependence – on media at the expense of social engagement; a reliance driven in no small part to the attractiveness of media as a form of entertainment (Zillmann, 2000).[4] While attractive, most forms of entertainment media are not designed to be consumed socially but rather are isolated pursuits, and this isolation comes at the expense of social interaction and, eventually, civic engagement.[5] Similar patterns have been reported with the use of new media. For example, Nie and Erbring (2000) found initial evidence that increased time spent with media technology led to decreased interaction with family and friends, and Stepanikova, Nie, and He (2010) reported positive associations between increased Internet browsing and general Internet communication (such as chat rooms) and both increased loneliness and decreased life satisfaction.
(Social) Media as a Binding Force
In response to these criticisms, we first note that new technologies almost always usher in a wave of criticism regarding their potentially-damaging effects on social engagement (cf. Bargh & McKenna, 2004). In many ways, early theorists tend to make “milkshake mistakes” (Shirkey, 2010, pp. 12) by focusing more on the channel of communication and less on its function. For example, the early cues-filtered-out approach to online communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986) argued that sustaining meaningful communication would be difficult through mediated communication because of the lack of social cues in interaction. More current theorizing by Walther (1992) argued instead for a cues-filtered-in approach suggesting that technology users are able to overcome and even take advantage of the lack of cues in order to sustain and even enhance relationships. As well, while the two aforementioned studies by Nie and colleagues argued that technology use displaces us from spending time with one another, scrutiny of data from the former study found no appreciable reduction of time spent with family and friends for 95 percent of participants (Katz et al., 2001) and scrutiny of the methodology from the latter study calls to question whether Internet browsing and general Internet communication are variables focused incorrectly on mere time spent with the channel of communication rather than attending to the manner in which it is being used (cf. Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001).[6]
Indeed, those scholars who argue for the individualizing role of the technology appear to overlook the many communication functions that new media collects in one place (Bargh &; McKenna, 2004). Put simply, while time spent with technology might be increasing, much of this time is spent communicating with friends and family via e-mail, text messaging, status updates, sharing multimedia, and even sharing and discussing traditional media – often during times in which communication might not have been possible (for example, waiting in line while shopping or waiting for a train, bus, or plane at a public terminal). These findings track with the assertions of Christakis and Fowler (2009) who argued that communication technologies tend to draw us closer to, rather away from, our past. Indeed, Robinson and colleagues (2000) argued that survey data suggesting increased social involvement for Internet users is not problematic but rather can be explained by understanding said use as a purposive attempt by users to connect with each other. Katz et al. (2001) reported increased involvement in religion, leisure, and community organizations for Internet users using a similar line of argumentation. Additionally, Kraut et al. (2002) found that after an initial dip in interaction immediately following the introduction of computers to Pittsburgh households, time spent with friends and family face-to-face increased significantly after people learned how to use various programs (e-mail, social network sites, blogs, etc.) to stay in touch with others. Studying urban spaces, Hampton, Livio, and Goulet (2010) found that individuals who lived or spent time in areas with free wireless access tended to have many more strong and weak ties (both face-to-face and CMC) than individuals without wireless access.[7]
Arab Spring and the Case for Digitalengemeinsch`ft
Perhaps one of the more stark examples of social media connecting otherwise-disparate individuals in a communal fashion is the aforementioned Arab Spring uprisings in early 2011. What started with a vegetable merchant’s self-immolation in protest of government policy in Tunisia evolved into political discourse not commonly seen in this region of the world and certainly not seen through domestic media sources. While state-controlled media provided little coverage of Mohammed Bouzazizi’s protest and death, news of his apparent self-sacrifice in defiance of his government spread through Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube not only through the Arab world but also the global media, a key factor in grabbing world attention to the debates and providing a human face to otherwise-unknown – or at least, under-reported – perceived political oppression (Howard, Duffy, Freeion, Hussain, Mari, & Mazaid, 2011). Regarding new media, Howard et al. (2011) identified three features of the Arab Spring both central to its success and directly attributable to social media usage: the use of social media to circumvent traditional media systems and shape political debates (such as the creation of Youtube videos of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s wife shopping in Europe using state-owned aircraft), a spike in online conversations directly preceding major events on the ground (for example, a 1000 percent spike in criticism of then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – from 2,300 to 230,000 daily tweets – in the week preceding his resignation), and the role of social media in globalizing the democratic revolution (such as the 225,000 tweets discussing Mubarak’s resignation that originated outside of Egypt). Notably, their research uncovered that many of the social media “players” during the Arab Spring were not close-knit friends or political operatives. Rather, they were disenfranchised urban youth whose new-found social media networks allowed them to collectively express their disapproval of their regimes in an extreme form of civic engagement: protest.
Focusing on the functions of technology allows us to understand this binding role of social media in modern society, both in the Arab Spring example above and in general. Anecdotally and empirically, time spent with social media appears to often be directed toward relational maintenance, as said media provide opportunities to maintain connections that otherwise might be lost due to our own daily discourses. As we shifted from the pre-Industrial Revolution Gemeinschaft to the modern-day Gessellschaft, communication technology has continually evolved to bridge the growing gap between ourselves and those we hold close, in some ways in an effort to bring us back to where we came from (Christakis & Fowler, 2009). But just as we have learned to use communication technology to overcome the limitations of CMC (cf. Walther, 1992), might it be possible that we can learn to integrate technology into enhancing our connections with one another as suggested by Hollan and Stornetta (1992)? Indeed, Clark (2003) argued that technologies make us more rather than less human, as we learn to extend our minds beyond their physical limitations. In terms of social media, we have learned to use the programs in order to stay in closer contact with each other by sharing (and remembering) details about each other – such as birthdays, anniversaries and other special events – that not only sustain our relationships with one another, but actually enhance and strengthen them.
Of course, it is still open for debate as to whether or not increased strong ties are necessarily a good thing. Granovetter (1973) argued that that while strong ties are good for social connectedness, weak ties might actually be better for the spread of novel information because there is little fear of reprisal from the other party. Similarly, Kang (2000) suggested that the anonymity and lack of relational closeness typified by some online communication tends to increase self-disclosure because individuals are less concerned with saving face. In short, it can be argued that strong ties tend to formalize and choke communication (particularly of novel information) while weak ties are better equipped to expand communication. Along this vein, social media may be able to help us maintain both types of ties. Social media allows us to sustain (and enhance) propinquity (closeness) with our close relational partners (Bazarova & Walther, 2008), but they also allow us to expose ourselves to new information through the formation of weak ties (cf. Granovetter, 1973) – in other words, the Digitalengemeinschaft (the digital society) might actually function better than the Gemeinschaft (the close-knit but also closed-off form of old society). Perhaps the shift to the Digitalengemeinschaft will help bind rather than individualize users, influencing civic engagement by altering the manner in which information is consumed and shared.
_________________
Footnotes
[1] In confirmation of Putnam’s hypothesis regarding social isolation, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears (2006) found that Americans in general self-reporting having few confidants with which to share information than they did in the mid-20th century.
[2] Indeed, Putnam’s assertions have been challenged even with regards to traditional media, as research suggests increased traditional media use to increase rather than decrease civic engagement (cf. Moy, Scheufele, & Holbert, 1999) when one considers the goal of media usage – in this case informational rather than entertainment.
[3] Of course, social media has also played a prominent role in more unfortunate Philadelphia “phlash robs” of Summer 2011, where teenagers were using social media applications to coordinate mayhem throughout the city (cf. Timpane, 2011).
[4] In fact, as far back as the early 20th century Hart (1925) noted that “the eight-hour work day is now the accepted working day in almost all industries. That leaves eight hours in which people may follow their own pursuits. It is a matter of concern in a democracy what those pursuits shall be” (pp. 111).
[5] We are careful to note here that as far back as the Payne Fund Studies (cf. Lowery & DeFleur, 1995) researchers found certain media to be social in nature, such as children attending movies together. As well, anecdotal ‘water cooler talk’ about television has been prevalent since the invention of the medium (cf. the infamous Seinfeld lawsuits early 90s, where employees repeating jokes from the show at work were being accused of harassment; Kauffman, 2009). At the risk of creating a straw man argument, we nonetheless present the media individualization argument in the vein of Putnam.
[6] In fact, both Mannell, Zuzanek, and Aronson (2005) and Peng and Zhu (2011) found that new media users spend significantly less time with traditional media, and both groups spend a relative equal amount of time on social activities – suggesting that new media displaces time spent with old media but not time spent engaging in society.
[7] Moy et al.’s (1999) finding that heavy traditional media users were more civically engaged can also be explained from a functional approach, as it makes sense that in order for an individual to be involved in their community, they would need to be attuned to the issues affecting said community – issues likely represented in the mass media in the form of local television and newspapers.
References
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2005).The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590.
Bazarova, N. N., & Walther, J. B. (2008).Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622-645.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009).Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
Cettron, M., & Davies, O. (1989). American Renaissance: Our life at the turn of the 21st century. New York: St. Martin’s.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986).Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Goulet, L. S. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701-722.
Hart, J. K. (1925). The place of leisure in life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 118, 111-115.
Holland, J.D., & Stornetta S., (1992). Beyond being there. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Human Interaction: Monterey, CA, 119-125.
Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freeion, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Project on Information Technology & Political Islam, University of Washington.
Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 311-322.
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The internet, 1995-2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 405-419.
Kauffman, C. (2009, August 22). ‘Seinfeld’ joke gets man canned for harassment. Des Moines Register.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., et al. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.
Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement, and psychological empowerment. New Media &Society, 11(8), 1327-1347.
Lowery, S. A. & DeFleur, M. L. (1995).Milestones in Mass Communication Research (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mannell, R. C., Zuzanek, J., & Aronson, R. (2005, May). Internet/computer use and adolescent leisure behavior, flow experiences and psychological well-being: The displacement hypothesis. Paper presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Nanaimo, BC.
Moy, P., Scheufele, D. A., & Holbert, R. L. (1999). Television use and social capital: Testing Putman’s time displacement hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 2(1/2), 27-45.
Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Sociology.
Peng, T. Q. & Zhu, J. H. (2011). A game of win-win or win-lose? Revisiting the internet’s influence of sociability and the use of traditional media. New Media & Society, 13(4), 568-586.
Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling along: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28, 664-683.
Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Smith, A. (2011). The social side of the internet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-501.
Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L., (2001). “Connecting” and “Disconnecting” with civic live: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141-162.
Shirkey, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin.
Shirkey, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus. New York: Penguin.
Stepanikova, I.,.Nie, N. H., & He, X. (2010). Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: Evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 329-338.
Timpane, J. (2011, August 14). Flash-mob violence raises weighty questions. Philadelphia Inquirer.Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-14/news/29886718_1_social-media-flash-mob-facebook-and-other-services.
Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gessellschaft. Trans. by J. Harris (2001). Community and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Zillmann, D. (2000). The coming of media entertainment.In D. Zillmann (Ed.), Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal. Mahwah, NJ: LEA, pp. 1-21.
From the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution to Putman’s (1995; 2000) infamous “Bowling Alone” hypothesis, there has been an assumption among scholars that urban communities feature collections of isolated individuals – that is, dense populations with few and weak social bonds between people. Media scholars invoke Tönnies (1887) concept of Gessellschaft to explain mass audiences with little in common but their shared media experiences, and this assumption is at the foundation of many classic theories of mass communication such as agenda-setting and cultivation theory. In a Gessellschaft, media is thought to hold influence on individuals due to its pervasiveness, consistency, and importance in their daily lives as a sole source of information and leisure, as these individuals lack of interpersonal bonds with others is thought to strengthen media’s potential effect on them. Perhaps most associated with Putnam (1996), this isolationist approach to media has been challenged recently as the popularity of social media continues to rise. The new social media appears to serve as a binding rather than individualizing force, as it features users collaborating and creating content to share with one another – in many ways, helping us reconnect with our past social ways (cf. Christakis & Fowler, 2009). In the new “publish first, filter second” paradigm, media users are increasingly serving as producers and consumers of their own unique content, and this process is playing out globally, particularly in urban areas as witnessed by recent political unrest in major Arab capitals and, more recently, similar civic actions in San Francisco, London, and Philadelphia. This paper will discuss the implications of increased social media adoption in understanding how information is created and shared – suggesting the presence of a Digitalegemeinschaft, or a society bonded through social media and reminiscent of the close-knit Gemeinschaft of older times. Our paper further argues that social network serves to bond otherwise-detached urban communities, and this bonding can have a profound effect on civic engagement by cultivating an environment by which information is delivered to the masses from the masses.
When is a metropolis a village? Social media and the demise of Gessellschaft
Traditional views of the role of media in society have focused on its individualizing role. The earliest theories of media effect assumed strong, universal and direct effects of messages on individuals due to the weakness of individuals’ connections to one another in the new Gessellschaft –the densely-populated-yet-socially-isolated urban environment (cf. Tönnies, 1887). Although this “magic bullet” paradigm (cf. Lowery & DeFleur, 1995) has long since been rejected by media scholars, concerns about the individualizing effects of media on society have remained. For example, Putnam’s (1995a; 1995b) displacement hypothesis argues that media – particularly television (as a dominant form of traditional media) – tends to privatize leisure time in deference to engaging in more social activities resulting in an erosion of civic engagement and an increase in social isolation.[1] Yet, emerging anecdotal and empirical data suggest the assumption of media as an individualizing force to be a flawed one, and instead has argued for the binding role of media – particularly social media – in bringing us together more in line with Tönnies’ (1887) notion of Gemeinschaft, or community of close-knit individuals marked by a “unity of will”(pp. 22). Recent research (Jennings & Zeitner, 2003; Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001;) has reported positive associations between increased Internet usage and several indicators of civic engagement such as increased social capital. Particularly with Facebook, work by Valenzuela, Park and Kee (2009) reported a positive relationship between intense Facebook use and civic engagement among college students, and Leung (2009) found that users who generate their own content felt more empowered in their civic engagement off-line.[2]
A better understanding of social media’s functionality might offer an explanation for these patterns. Shirkey (2008; 2010) noted that social media technology has ushered in a media system in which we collaborate in the creation and sharing of content rather than passively consume it in isolation. Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) suggest communication technology to strengthen rather than weaken our participation in society, finding through survey research that individuals online are more engaged in their communities than those offline. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence points to the role of social media in fanning the flames of political uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia as well as other Arab nations – the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 – as individuals with similar ideas were able to circumvent traditional media controls to collaborate and share messages of revolution through new media channels.[3] Taking these arguments in sum and conceptualizing our past Gemeinschaft with our present Gessellschaft, we argue that while mediated communication channels may distance us physically, their function draw us closer both socially and psychologically, and we suggest implications for this new Digitalegemeinschaft at the theoretical and applied level. We argue that social media has ushered in a demise of the isolated society and the (re)birth of a digitally-connected one.
Media as an Individualizing Force
Traditional media has often been chided for its role in the demise of social capital and civic engagement. Putnam (1995a,b) argued for the individualizing role of television viewing in his infamous “Bowling Alone” treatise, suggesting that while the average American has experienced an increase in leisure time, this time has been filled using forms of media that isolate them from one another. Shirkey (2010) similarly argued that the cognitive surplus experienced by individuals as a result of increased modernization (particularly in the workplace, where the average work week has fallen from 80 hours in the late 1800s to less than 35 today; Cettron & Davies, 1989) resulted in a reliance – not a dependence – on media at the expense of social engagement; a reliance driven in no small part to the attractiveness of media as a form of entertainment (Zillmann, 2000).[4] While attractive, most forms of entertainment media are not designed to be consumed socially but rather are isolated pursuits, and this isolation comes at the expense of social interaction and, eventually, civic engagement.[5] Similar patterns have been reported with the use of new media. For example, Nie and Erbring (2000) found initial evidence that increased time spent with media technology led to decreased interaction with family and friends, and Stepanikova, Nie, and He (2010) reported positive associations between increased Internet browsing and general Internet communication (such as chat rooms) and both increased loneliness and decreased life satisfaction.
(Social) Media as a Binding Force
In response to these criticisms, we first note that new technologies almost always usher in a wave of criticism regarding their potentially-damaging effects on social engagement (cf. Bargh & McKenna, 2004). In many ways, early theorists tend to make “milkshake mistakes” (Shirkey, 2010, pp. 12) by focusing more on the channel of communication and less on its function. For example, the early cues-filtered-out approach to online communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986) argued that sustaining meaningful communication would be difficult through mediated communication because of the lack of social cues in interaction. More current theorizing by Walther (1992) argued instead for a cues-filtered-in approach suggesting that technology users are able to overcome and even take advantage of the lack of cues in order to sustain and even enhance relationships. As well, while the two aforementioned studies by Nie and colleagues argued that technology use displaces us from spending time with one another, scrutiny of data from the former study found no appreciable reduction of time spent with family and friends for 95 percent of participants (Katz et al., 2001) and scrutiny of the methodology from the latter study calls to question whether Internet browsing and general Internet communication are variables focused incorrectly on mere time spent with the channel of communication rather than attending to the manner in which it is being used (cf. Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001).[6]
Indeed, those scholars who argue for the individualizing role of the technology appear to overlook the many communication functions that new media collects in one place (Bargh &; McKenna, 2004). Put simply, while time spent with technology might be increasing, much of this time is spent communicating with friends and family via e-mail, text messaging, status updates, sharing multimedia, and even sharing and discussing traditional media – often during times in which communication might not have been possible (for example, waiting in line while shopping or waiting for a train, bus, or plane at a public terminal). These findings track with the assertions of Christakis and Fowler (2009) who argued that communication technologies tend to draw us closer to, rather away from, our past. Indeed, Robinson and colleagues (2000) argued that survey data suggesting increased social involvement for Internet users is not problematic but rather can be explained by understanding said use as a purposive attempt by users to connect with each other. Katz et al. (2001) reported increased involvement in religion, leisure, and community organizations for Internet users using a similar line of argumentation. Additionally, Kraut et al. (2002) found that after an initial dip in interaction immediately following the introduction of computers to Pittsburgh households, time spent with friends and family face-to-face increased significantly after people learned how to use various programs (e-mail, social network sites, blogs, etc.) to stay in touch with others. Studying urban spaces, Hampton, Livio, and Goulet (2010) found that individuals who lived or spent time in areas with free wireless access tended to have many more strong and weak ties (both face-to-face and CMC) than individuals without wireless access.[7]
Arab Spring and the Case for Digitalengemeinsch`ft
Perhaps one of the more stark examples of social media connecting otherwise-disparate individuals in a communal fashion is the aforementioned Arab Spring uprisings in early 2011. What started with a vegetable merchant’s self-immolation in protest of government policy in Tunisia evolved into political discourse not commonly seen in this region of the world and certainly not seen through domestic media sources. While state-controlled media provided little coverage of Mohammed Bouzazizi’s protest and death, news of his apparent self-sacrifice in defiance of his government spread through Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube not only through the Arab world but also the global media, a key factor in grabbing world attention to the debates and providing a human face to otherwise-unknown – or at least, under-reported – perceived political oppression (Howard, Duffy, Freeion, Hussain, Mari, & Mazaid, 2011). Regarding new media, Howard et al. (2011) identified three features of the Arab Spring both central to its success and directly attributable to social media usage: the use of social media to circumvent traditional media systems and shape political debates (such as the creation of Youtube videos of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s wife shopping in Europe using state-owned aircraft), a spike in online conversations directly preceding major events on the ground (for example, a 1000 percent spike in criticism of then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – from 2,300 to 230,000 daily tweets – in the week preceding his resignation), and the role of social media in globalizing the democratic revolution (such as the 225,000 tweets discussing Mubarak’s resignation that originated outside of Egypt). Notably, their research uncovered that many of the social media “players” during the Arab Spring were not close-knit friends or political operatives. Rather, they were disenfranchised urban youth whose new-found social media networks allowed them to collectively express their disapproval of their regimes in an extreme form of civic engagement: protest.
Focusing on the functions of technology allows us to understand this binding role of social media in modern society, both in the Arab Spring example above and in general. Anecdotally and empirically, time spent with social media appears to often be directed toward relational maintenance, as said media provide opportunities to maintain connections that otherwise might be lost due to our own daily discourses. As we shifted from the pre-Industrial Revolution Gemeinschaft to the modern-day Gessellschaft, communication technology has continually evolved to bridge the growing gap between ourselves and those we hold close, in some ways in an effort to bring us back to where we came from (Christakis & Fowler, 2009). But just as we have learned to use communication technology to overcome the limitations of CMC (cf. Walther, 1992), might it be possible that we can learn to integrate technology into enhancing our connections with one another as suggested by Hollan and Stornetta (1992)? Indeed, Clark (2003) argued that technologies make us more rather than less human, as we learn to extend our minds beyond their physical limitations. In terms of social media, we have learned to use the programs in order to stay in closer contact with each other by sharing (and remembering) details about each other – such as birthdays, anniversaries and other special events – that not only sustain our relationships with one another, but actually enhance and strengthen them.
Of course, it is still open for debate as to whether or not increased strong ties are necessarily a good thing. Granovetter (1973) argued that that while strong ties are good for social connectedness, weak ties might actually be better for the spread of novel information because there is little fear of reprisal from the other party. Similarly, Kang (2000) suggested that the anonymity and lack of relational closeness typified by some online communication tends to increase self-disclosure because individuals are less concerned with saving face. In short, it can be argued that strong ties tend to formalize and choke communication (particularly of novel information) while weak ties are better equipped to expand communication. Along this vein, social media may be able to help us maintain both types of ties. Social media allows us to sustain (and enhance) propinquity (closeness) with our close relational partners (Bazarova & Walther, 2008), but they also allow us to expose ourselves to new information through the formation of weak ties (cf. Granovetter, 1973) – in other words, the Digitalengemeinschaft (the digital society) might actually function better than the Gemeinschaft (the close-knit but also closed-off form of old society). Perhaps the shift to the Digitalengemeinschaft will help bind rather than individualize users, influencing civic engagement by altering the manner in which information is consumed and shared.
_________________
Footnotes
[1] In confirmation of Putnam’s hypothesis regarding social isolation, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears (2006) found that Americans in general self-reporting having few confidants with which to share information than they did in the mid-20th century.
[2] Indeed, Putnam’s assertions have been challenged even with regards to traditional media, as research suggests increased traditional media use to increase rather than decrease civic engagement (cf. Moy, Scheufele, & Holbert, 1999) when one considers the goal of media usage – in this case informational rather than entertainment.
[3] Of course, social media has also played a prominent role in more unfortunate Philadelphia “phlash robs” of Summer 2011, where teenagers were using social media applications to coordinate mayhem throughout the city (cf. Timpane, 2011).
[4] In fact, as far back as the early 20th century Hart (1925) noted that “the eight-hour work day is now the accepted working day in almost all industries. That leaves eight hours in which people may follow their own pursuits. It is a matter of concern in a democracy what those pursuits shall be” (pp. 111).
[5] We are careful to note here that as far back as the Payne Fund Studies (cf. Lowery & DeFleur, 1995) researchers found certain media to be social in nature, such as children attending movies together. As well, anecdotal ‘water cooler talk’ about television has been prevalent since the invention of the medium (cf. the infamous Seinfeld lawsuits early 90s, where employees repeating jokes from the show at work were being accused of harassment; Kauffman, 2009). At the risk of creating a straw man argument, we nonetheless present the media individualization argument in the vein of Putnam.
[6] In fact, both Mannell, Zuzanek, and Aronson (2005) and Peng and Zhu (2011) found that new media users spend significantly less time with traditional media, and both groups spend a relative equal amount of time on social activities – suggesting that new media displaces time spent with old media but not time spent engaging in society.
[7] Moy et al.’s (1999) finding that heavy traditional media users were more civically engaged can also be explained from a functional approach, as it makes sense that in order for an individual to be involved in their community, they would need to be attuned to the issues affecting said community – issues likely represented in the mass media in the form of local television and newspapers.
References
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2005).The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590.
Bazarova, N. N., & Walther, J. B. (2008).Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622-645.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009).Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
Cettron, M., & Davies, O. (1989). American Renaissance: Our life at the turn of the 21st century. New York: St. Martin’s.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986).Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Goulet, L. S. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701-722.
Hart, J. K. (1925). The place of leisure in life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 118, 111-115.
Holland, J.D., & Stornetta S., (1992). Beyond being there. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Human Interaction: Monterey, CA, 119-125.
Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freeion, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Project on Information Technology & Political Islam, University of Washington.
Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 311-322.
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The internet, 1995-2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 405-419.
Kauffman, C. (2009, August 22). ‘Seinfeld’ joke gets man canned for harassment. Des Moines Register.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., et al. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.
Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement, and psychological empowerment. New Media &Society, 11(8), 1327-1347.
Lowery, S. A. & DeFleur, M. L. (1995).Milestones in Mass Communication Research (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mannell, R. C., Zuzanek, J., & Aronson, R. (2005, May). Internet/computer use and adolescent leisure behavior, flow experiences and psychological well-being: The displacement hypothesis. Paper presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Nanaimo, BC.
Moy, P., Scheufele, D. A., & Holbert, R. L. (1999). Television use and social capital: Testing Putman’s time displacement hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 2(1/2), 27-45.
Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Sociology.
Peng, T. Q. & Zhu, J. H. (2011). A game of win-win or win-lose? Revisiting the internet’s influence of sociability and the use of traditional media. New Media & Society, 13(4), 568-586.
Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling along: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28, 664-683.
Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Smith, A. (2011). The social side of the internet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-501.
Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L., (2001). “Connecting” and “Disconnecting” with civic live: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141-162.
Shirkey, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin.
Shirkey, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus. New York: Penguin.
Stepanikova, I.,.Nie, N. H., & He, X. (2010). Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: Evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 329-338.
Timpane, J. (2011, August 14). Flash-mob violence raises weighty questions. Philadelphia Inquirer.Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-14/news/29886718_1_social-media-flash-mob-facebook-and-other-services.
Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gessellschaft. Trans. by J. Harris (2001). Community and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Zillmann, D. (2000). The coming of media entertainment.In D. Zillmann (Ed.), Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal. Mahwah, NJ: LEA, pp. 1-21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)