The Role of Facebook.com in Public Sphere - Report Example

Introduction Proper understanding of media theories, literature and practices is an essential base for media students. Understanding media theories is best of all revealed through a case study, because it requires selecting a real-world subject for analysis, taking relevant theory and demonstrating its practical application. Thus ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practice is revealed, which is the goal of the given discipline. The purpose of this case study therefore is to analyze facebook.com in the context of the media historical perspective, concepts of media audience, its place in the public sphere, and analysis and application of fan and anti-fan theory. The paper will seek to identify areas of application of the above mentioned theories and will analyze their implications. The key question the given case study is aiming to answer is ‘Does facebook.com actually encompass the contemporary theories and technologies learnt in media studies?’ Social Networking Services Facebook.com is a social networking service, just like other similar services, MySpace, Hi5, Friendster etc. Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social networking services (SNSs) as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The unique feature of SNSs, including facebook.com is it does not seek to meet strangers, but rather that they articulate their social networks, they are not looking to meet new people, instead they are communication with members of their extended social network (ibid). At the same time, such offline social networks are open to strangers, who can either join subordinated communities freely in facebook.com. Otherwise growth of the service would be made impossible. Being open to strangers is an important part of forming a public, which will be discussed later. Facebook.com and its place from historical perspective Development of new media is realized on the basis of the existing technology and known types of media. For example, Williams (1974), mentions that television emerged on the basis of the earlier known forms of media, such as the newspaper, the public meeting, the education class etc. This claim seems plausible, especially in the context of emergence of new media types. The Information Age, which was a result of globalization and unprecedented spread and concentration of people, money, technology, ideas and media (Appadurai, 1997), presented audiences with a new medium – the Internet. Spread of Internet and its effect was similar to that of television and radio and broadcasting, which changed the collective dimension of public audiences, dispersing them to their homes (Butsch, 2000). Initially the new media contained only textual materials and was used as an electronic version of textual media (plain html text), however further advance of technology has added other means of conveying information: graphic, video and audio resources. Mediatization has manifested itself as advance of Internet technology and technical devices, in a way that it has enabled to access this resource form a number of digital means: cell phones, palm tops, laptops via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc. It is also seen as a demarcation of most of the regimes previously imposed on the audiences like ban on communication, presence at a given place and in time, position towards the source of media etc. Virtually such technology has dispersed this type of media even further, taking it beyond homes, into private lives. Besides that changes in mediatization revealed that media consumers demonstrated differential approach to media, selecting the time, the text that was of interest to them. Arguably, as a result of this differentiation media makers recognized that the product had to ‘flow’, rather than concentrating on a particular text. Consequently media, especially the Internet media became more interactive and therefore more efficient by provoking responses from the audience. Facebook.com is one of the examples of the modern day media, providing its audience with exactly what it wants. It was launched in 2004 as a Harvard-only site, later on opening its doors to other university and high-school students. It got so popular that the moment seniors were accepted to a college, they started hounding the college sysadmins for their .edu account because being on facebook was considered cool (Boyd, 2007). Over 5 years, it has built up an audience of 200 mln people, confirming its popularity and the ability to meet demands of the contemporary public. I would argue that one of its main strengths is that it turns the imagined community into a virtual one, where people can join to have fun, buy or sell, debate over a number of issues etc. Unlike an imagined community, where people can only be identified on the basis of their support/non-support of a certain idea or response to a text, a virtual community is closer to a real life one with real people participating in it. Facebook.com allows its ‘picky’ users to join in groups of interests, in which otherwise diverse people are united. Furthermore it offers its users a wide range of groups of interest, covering virtually all sorts of imagined communities, from children and school, to economics and politics. All of its users can join a number of groups simultaneously and are able to engage in interaction at their own discretion. This takes the audience beyond the TV or movie screen, where they are tied to one thing at a time. They are able to pick the time, theme, community in which they want to engage and participate at the moment and they are free to do so without waiting for the time when ‘the show is on’. Furthermore, interactivity of facebook.com and personalization of users’ experience contribute to the popularity of the service and its overall effectiveness in engaging the audience. Use of chat rooms, instant messaging opportunities, privatized interpersonal communication, use of text, video, audio – all contribute to its popularity, making it an interesting phenomenon in the modern media world. Industrialization has manifested itself in form of commercial advertising, which is amply presented at the website, and which is also grouped according to the target audience. This allows sponsors to more effectively invest their funds and as a result provides greater efficiency of advertising and at the same time boosts use of service through funding. In addition, industrialization in contemporary media production is closely related to globalization, which is just what Internet offers - displacement of communities and widening their geography. ‘The rise of the network society’ shows that impact of globalization is felt in every corner of the world (see in Ross & Nightingale, 2003). Virtually any Internet user, from any part of the globe, can access facebook.com and engage in interaction within the chosen community. The Role of Facebook.com in Public sphere Jurgen Habermas defines public sphere as a ‘real of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed.’ (Habermas, 2006). Furthermore, he maintains that in order to belong to the public sphere, access has to be granted to every its participant on an equal basis and that a portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body (ibid). In a free democracy, where the right of assemble and free association is secured to its citizens by a state, facebook.com becomes an element of public sphere: every member has free access to the service, anyone beyond 13 years of age can sign up, individuals can assemble in virtual communities and express their opinions, pursue discussions etc. At the same time, position of this service is rather special, because social networks such as facebook.com were not made to raise political, economic, cultural etc. discussions, but rather they enable users to create visible their social networks with the aim of personal communication. Social influence as a response to the acts of public authority came into play later, and can be considered secondary. Belonging to the media world Facebook.com also contains a series of hot social, political economic and other issues, which are influencing public opinion. For example, there are groups titled ‘Vote Obama’ or a group titled ‘Government + Religion = Disaster’ (almost 100 000 members), where respective topics are being discussed and thus public opinion is formed. One peculiarity that is worth commenting on is the fact that on facebook.com users are both creators and consumers of media content. Besides that, messages posted on facebook.com are largely influenced by what participants learn outside their virtual communities, i.e. newspapers, television shows etc. In other words, facebook.com, belonging to the public sphere only indirectly shapes public opinion, being the place for discussion of all members of a given virtual community. As it has been previously mentioned, every user is able to access facebook.com from virtually any point of the globe, which gives the service another interesting advantage: real-time access to information. For example, the discussion of Zionism in the ‘Government + Religion = Disaster’ topic allows both Zionists and Anti-Zionists to take part in the conversation, thus getting a fairly balanced idea of the problem. As a result of this discussion and on the basis of the heard/seen in the media, participants form a public opinion. This public opinion, multiplied by the number of users and their geographical location contribute to public opinions of their communities, thus creating a ripple effect. As a result a globalized public of opinion is obtained. Publics and Counter Publics in the Context of Facebook.com In his book “Publics and counter publics” Warner (2002) brings about differentiation of the terms the public and a public, advocating difference in their meanings. In his own words, the public is a kind of social totality – a nation, class, profession etc, whereas a public is, roughly, the target audience, the target of the discourse. He also points out the third sense of the public, meaning ‘the kind of public that comes into being only in relation to texts and their meaning’ (ibid). All these senses are rather vague and at times hard to define, when their meaning is only contextually determined, when different meanings of these terms are at play at once. He further outlines four criteria of forming a public: self organization, relation among strangers, personal and impersonal address of speech and constitution of public on the basis of attention. Finally, he attempts to define the counter-publics, which is constituted when members of a subordinated discourse choose “to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (ibid). Let us look at application of this theory with facebook.com. As mentioned before meanings of the public and a public can intertwine. Warner doesn’t give a clear definition of the public, and as a result we end up having a number of questions to answer prior to defining it: is the public of facebook.com constituted by a totality of all people, all literate people, all people who have Internet access or those with Internet access and who are registered at the website? I see the most accurate definition of the facebook.com public as: all people with Internet access. The public comprises both users who are registered at facebook.com and those who are not. I believe this definition to be accurate because those who are not registered can potentially get registered, likewise those who are already registered can delete their account and stop using the service. Definition of a public of facebook.com is easier due to its extensive description, yet it contains its peculiarities, arising from the nature of the service. As mentioned before, a social networking service is meant for establishing connections among individuals and personal communication. At this state there is no public in its ‘text (third) meaning’. There is no discourse and members of the network are in the process of communicating with their contacts. A public is created when a discourse begins, when there is a message that is sent to a totality of people interested in it and who are paying attention to it. This happens when a group is created according to their interest (see examples of groups above). In this situation there is self-organization within the group, because there is a certain idea that unites ‘otherwise unrelated people’ (ibid). There are also such things as relation among strangers, because new members can join a group in a discussion, which is both personal and impersonal. All of this gathers attention of the audience and evokes response in forms of comments. Rather controversial and vague is the definition of counter-publics and its practical application in the context of this case study. It is not immediately clear how counter-publics formulate oppositional interpretations. Are they not participating in the discussion? Are they forming ‘opposition’ within the topic under discussion? Are they acting against use and existence of facebook.com per se? I can only speculate that counter-public is manifested in creation of such groups on facebook.com as, for example, Gay Marriage (426,783 fans). However, such interpretation is too narrow and for that reason is not satisfactory. This question remains open ended, implying further research. Application of Fan, Non-Fan and Anti-Fan Theory in Facebook Gray (2003) does a great job by metaphorically comparing fans, non-fans and anti-fans to an atom, which contains negatively, neutrally as well as positively charged particles. Such trychotomy gives an excellent example of how ‘differently charged’ particles can form one whole. Let’s review practical application of this theory. In case of facebook.com fans are those subscribers of the service that like it and are enthusiastic about it. I would speculate that they are among those users who spend most time browsing on facebook.com. It is also convenient to perceive them as being strictly a part of ‘a public’, i.e. registered users of facebook.com who take full advantage of using the service. Within the context of facebook.com we can point out two types of fans – those who are enjoying using facebook as a service and those fans within the facebook community. The latter is in essence, one-directional ties, which demonstrate support over an idea or group (Boyd, 2006a). I tend to support the first group as being fans, it being wide and comprehensive. Non-fans and anti-fans are compared to neutrons and electrons respectively. Non-fans for the most part belong to ‘a public’, but can also belong to ‘the public’. They might be using it, but not find a lot of sense/pleasure, or likewise be informed about the service, but not registered users, thus remaining neutral to the website. The anti-fan is most likely a previous facebook subscriber, and currently a part of ‘the public’. An anti-fan is a person who is in most cases able to provide insights regarding negative aspects of the service, such as privacy issues, sexual harassment and others. Such people are able to provide valuable information on how to improve work of the service and how to assemble it in such a way so that issues are resolved. Therefore a thorough research of anti-fans would enable them to establish exact cause for dislike and reconstruct their message in a way that would be more appealing to the public. Conclusion A closer examination of facebook.com and analysis of its product along suggested theories has shown that this service indeed encompasses the contemporary theories and technologies learnt during media classes. It is worth mentioning that such this type of media has its unique features, which are not found in any other type of media, yet as a whole facebook.com does embrace contemporary media theories: it reflects high degree of mediatization and industrialization, takes its user beyond what conventional media can offer, forms communities, influences public opinion, has its publics, counter-publics as well as fans, non-fans and anti-fans. Despite providing a rough answer to the question posed, a more detailed response is yet to follow, signaling the need for further research. References 1. Appadurai A. (1997) Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN 2. Boyd, D. (2006a). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11 (12). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/ [retrieved June 3rd, 2009] 3. Boyd, Danah (2007) "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace." Apophenia Blog Essay. http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html [retrieved June 3rd, 2009] 4. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html [retrieved June 3rd, 2009] 5. Butsch, R. (2000). The making of American audiences from stage to television, 1750–1990. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 6. Gray, J (2003) ‘New Audiences. New Textualities: Anti-fans and non-fans’, International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (1) pp 64-81. 7. Habermas, J. (2006) ‘the Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article’ in M. Durham and D. Kellner (eds) Media and Cultural Studies: Keywords (revised edition) London: Blackwell pp 73-78. 8. Ross , K. and Nightingale, V. (2003) ‘Audiences in Historical perspective’, Media and Audiences: New perspectives, Maidenhead: Open University press pp 12-41. 9. Warner, M (2002) ‘Publics and Counterpublics’, Publics and Counterpublics New York: Zone books pp 65-124. 10. Williams (1974) Television: Technology and Cultural form. Technosphere Series. London: Collins. Read More

It is also seen as a demarcation of most of the regimes previously imposed on the audiences like ban on communication, presence at a given place and in time, position towards the source of media etc. Virtually such technology has dispersed this type of media even further, taking it beyond homes, into private lives. Besides that changes in mediatization revealed that media consumers demonstrated differential approach to media, selecting the time, the text that was of interest to them. Arguably, as a result of this differentiation media makers recognized that the product had to ‘flow’, rather than concentrating on a particular text.

Consequently media, especially the Internet media became more interactive and therefore more efficient by provoking responses from the audience. Facebook.com is one of the examples of the modern day media, providing its audience with exactly what it wants. It was launched in 2004 as a Harvard-only site, later on opening its doors to other university and high-school students. It got so popular that the moment seniors were accepted to a college, they started hounding the college sysadmins for their .

edu account because being on facebook was considered cool (Boyd, 2007). Over 5 years, it has built up an audience of 200 mln people, confirming its popularity and the ability to meet demands of the contemporary public. I would argue that one of its main strengths is that it turns the imagined community into a virtual one, where people can join to have fun, buy or sell, debate over a number of issues etc. Unlike an imagined community, where people can only be identified on the basis of their support/non-support of a certain idea or response to a text, a virtual community is closer to a real life one with real people participating in it. Facebook.com allows its ‘picky’ users to join in groups of interests, in which otherwise diverse people are united.

Furthermore it offers its users a wide range of groups of interest, covering virtually all sorts of imagined communities, from children and school, to economics and politics. All of its users can join a number of groups simultaneously and are able to engage in interaction at their own discretion. This takes the audience beyond the TV or movie screen, where they are tied to one thing at a time. They are able to pick the time, theme, community in which they want to engage and participate at the moment and they are free to do so without waiting for the time when ‘the show is on’.

Furthermore, interactivity of facebook.com and personalization of users’ experience contribute to the popularity of the service and its overall effectiveness in engaging the audience. Use of chat rooms, instant messaging opportunities, privatized interpersonal communication, use of text, video, audio – all contribute to its popularity, making it an interesting phenomenon in the modern media world. Industrialization has manifested itself in form of commercial advertising, which is amply presented at the website, and which is also grouped according to the target audience.

This allows sponsors to more effectively invest their funds and as a result provides greater efficiency of advertising and at the same time boosts use of service through funding. In addition, industrialization in contemporary media production is closely related to globalization, which is just what Internet offers - displacement of communities and widening their geography. ‘The rise of the network society’ shows that impact of globalization is felt in every corner of the world (see in Ross & Nightingale, 2003).

Virtually any Internet user, from any part of the globe, can access facebook.com and engage in interaction within the chosen community. The Role of Facebook.com in Public sphere Jurgen Habermas defines public sphere as a ‘real of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed.’ (Habermas, 2006). Furthermore, he maintains that in order to belong to the public sphere, access has to be granted to every its participant on an equal basis and that a portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body (ibid).

Read More