Facebook.com: A Sociological Perspective of the Procrastinator’s Worst Nightmare

No matter how busy I am, I check it at least three times daily…and that’s nothing compared to most of my friends. Facebook.com is currently one of the most trafficked social networking sites on the Internet. Taken from the term “facebook”, which is a book a university student would receive to see whom their professors and classmates were, Facebook.com was invented as an online version of the social networking tool. In sociological terms, Facebook is an evolving amalgamation of several agents of socialization all within fingertips’ reach. For instance, I can communicate with my family and peers, as well as display what types of peer groups I’m involved in, where I work, what religion I practice etc. But these are just the basics. What’s really interesting is to study the ways in which Facebook is growing and evolving to incorporate any and all forms of socialization. I’ve been a Facebook user since its invention and I speak from experience when I say that this website is no longer just a website. Much in the same way that modern day cell phones are no longer just cell phones, but rather are pieces of technology the size of a deck of playing cards that encapsulate one’s entire life. Facebook creates a world where physical socialization is unnecessary. One can post pictures of themselves with mere acquaintances to make it appear as if they have more fun or friends than the next person. Honesty boxes, now obsolete (because of a lawsuit I think), gave the opportunity for one to submit their true feelings about a person without revealing their identity. One can post comments on their friends’ walls, post videos and pictures, engage in interactive games, join groups, and participate in surveys. There is now even a Craigslist type application called Facebook Marketplace where users can post classifieds for jobs, roommates, apartments etc. But what does all mean from a sociological standpoint and how will its continual transformation affect current and future social trends?

One of the primary areas of interest to address is privacy. I know of many cases where college athletics ban or restrict the use of the website by their athletes. Impinging on freedom of speech much? Luckily Facebook has designed a way for one to control exactly who sees what on your profile. So, as a form of impression management, with a few mouse clicks, I will modify how I appear to those few coaches, professionals, and particular family members that are my Facebook friends. In this way, impression management limits the amount of role conflicts and strain. But always watch what you say. Even with the “remove” button, whatever you say could and occasionally does become public knowledge. In fact, sites like www.failbooking.com feed off of the silly sayings and occasional slip ups that are leaked onto Facebook. Unfortunately, what you say, groups you join, or friends you have, are all sold to different companies in order to provide funding via ads on the right hand side of your home screen. I didn’t realize this until one day last semester when I noticed a strange string of advertisements beginning with “Want to hook up with hot girls ages 18-2?” and ending at “Molecular and Cell Biology Graduate School Programs.”

Another sector of sociological interest is a more detailed analysis of Facebook’s social structure, and more specifically, the connections between individuals it allows one to make. First, there is the ever so popular wallpost. It is simple, effective, and versatile in its use. Depending on whose wall I’m writing on, my wallposts may be quick, one-word inside jokes, or a paragraph of witty banter. Next, there is the more popular “comment”. This option allows one to write comments on pictures, videos, wallposts and statuses, and even though it has the same word count limitations as wallposts, they are typically not as long. Then there are “statuses”. These gives someone the opportunity to tell their friends about how they feel, what they are doing, future plans etc. For example, my current Facebook status is “Finishing my Socio blog #4, then waking up at 5 am to pack and organize my life for the four days of classes I’ll be missing due to conference…(frowning face).” Another connection Facebook can establish between individuals is the weird and awkward “poke”. Honestly, I think I have poked MAYBE 10 people throughout my Facebook career. What does it mean? Is it flirtatious? Is it a sign of hostility? Is it simply another mechanism that further eliminates the need for words and language in the socialization process between individuals? The poke reminds me of something like a series of grunts and sounds cave men and women would make before formal languages were established. Finally, there is the newer Facebook connection application that actually ciphers through certain friends whom you haven’t interacted with for a long period of time and suggests you “reconnect” with them via any of Facebook’s connection establishing tools. As if that wasn’t annoying enough, there is also the “friend suggestion” application that suggests certain people whom you may know and therefore become friends.

I don’t know. Maybe it’s me, but I find it extremely odd that the more violating Facebook becomes via its increasing penetration into my school, extracurricular, and private life, the more addicting it becomes. It’s kind of like what Walmart does to small businesses. Walmart is so cheap, addictive, and all-encompassing, that it is slowly weaning out any and all forms of small businesses, which in turn, probably severely limits the amount of social interaction we encounter as consumers.

Do I think Facebook is bad? I think that’s an unfair question. That is like asking me if I think Jaywalking is bad. It is when I’m driving, but I do it all the time when I’m walking. It will be interesting to examine how Facebook, and websites like it, further impact and change our everyday socialization processes. I am having a WALL*E-type vision, but the picture is still a little hazey…

Forms of Norms: How and Why They Change

It’s interesting to observe how the standards of behavior maintained by a society, aka norms, can change either in response to a change in the socio-political atmosphere or simply adapt to the inevitable movement toward progression.

I think it’s generally accepted as common knowledge that the majority of the US political realm is made up of the dichotomy of partisan beliefs and ideals. The media tends to accentuate this flare with shows like Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes”. My dad calls it “the pendulum”, or otherwise, the correlation between party dominance and general norms held by society. I am, by no means, stating that this is the case 100% of the time, and there do exist many exceptions. However, many times our culture’s norms are heavily influenced by whoever is in power. Typically, this generalization takes on a pendulum-like nature as it swings left to right, right to left and so on. I think the norms that are most affected by this effect are those formal norms that are stated in bills, laws, and legislation. For example, passing bills to legalize marijuana may induce the transition of stigma to acceptance. Of course there are those for which something like this would only further perpetuate their fears and concerns about the substance, but perhaps over the course of a decade or two, marijuana could be recognized as a legitimate medical treatment or even day-to-day hobby.

On the other hand, I think those informal norms and folkways are more so a product of society’s progressive movement. Perhaps defining the “cause and effect” differences between changes in formal and informal norms is difficult because it becomes a game of “the chicken or the egg”. Which came first? Despite this dilemma, and for time’s sake I will, for now, conclude that even if these movements are in some way affected by the socio-political climate, they are more a result of social evolution. Take for example the article we read on the tattoo subculture. Even though certain laws regulate who and where people can get tattoos, I think the stigma associated with them are, for the most part, independent of legislation. I know many people who personally think “tamp stamps” are unacceptable and label their wearers as trash.

Although I personally HATE referring to anyone as trash, this learned social behavior is independent of the inking procedure’s current legal status. The article further states “as tattoo artists legitimize their work as art, it seems that they in turn decrease the stigma for the consumer” (Ferguson 73, 2008). Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s not looked down upon, which is why these artists feel that they must legitimize their work.

Another example of how certain informal norms and folkways shift and change may be the example we read about exotic dancers. First I would like to note how I already possess an innate distance to the word “stripper”, however “exotic” dancer seems, to me at least, somehow more accessible. Exotic could mean a variety of things; while everyone knows what strippers do…they strip off their clothes. To get back on track, I am really drawn to the way Lewis explains “rationalizing participation in a deviant occupation” (Ferguson 134, 2008). Exotic dancing is a legal occupation, however it is viewed as a heretical form of employment. As a

result, most of these dancers justify their actions by listing money, childcare, and a lack of an education as legitimate reasons why they must participate in this setting. Does their job make these women bad people? NO WAY! However, society has placed them, just as they have other occupations, towards the bottom of the hierarchy of employment, and subsequently, despite their high incomes, their titles are tagged with negative connotation. Yet, this negative connotation isn’t permanent and remains subject to change. In fact, just the other day I saw an infomercial soliciting exotic dance workouts. By partnering health and fitness with exotic dancing moves, the stigma associated with their jobs decreases. Changes in definitions like these can and do expand the limitations of socialization described by Lewis (Ferguson 139, 2008).

I want to note that I do not claim politics and law to be the sole attributors to changes in formal norms, and likewise social progression to be the only contributor to alterations in informal norms. In fact, I think sometimes it is some combination of some or all of the above. However, it will be intriguing to note and observe how things such as cultural lag, natural catastrophes, and wars will affect current and future societal norms.