In the wake of the Anthony Weiner scandal, the Washington Post’s calls attention to the modern phenomenon of the ‘e-fair.’ This is nothing new, of course, as social media sites like Facebook have been reported in divorce cases as contributing to the end of marriages. Yet the WaPo article has the intuition that ‘e-fairs’ are in some sense removed from the reality of ‘real life’ affairs.
We treat our virtual lives as if they have the same meaning, depth and repercussions as our offline lives, which is a noble impulse. But there is a difference. Having a Facebook friend is not the same as having a friend, tweeting a politically charged hashtag is not the same as being an activist and sexting is not the same as having sex.
All of these claims are true, but I would submit that they are trivially true. Of course sexting is not identical with having sex; anyone can see that. Yet the discernibility in the “meaning, depth and repercussions” of the actions doesn’t diminish their moral significance. This is because technology does not diminish our human significance. It is a fallacy to suppose that the online world we inhabit is somehow “less real” than then non-online world. Whatever the existence of the online person amounts to, it is unquestionably true that it makes a real difference in the world. And to make such a difference, a profound difference, both the human person and his or her significance must exist online. The denial of this truth is what I call the Facebook fallacy.
The Facebook fallacy rests on the simple assumption that the reality of a person’s being is diminished insofar as the person is mediated by technology. We might call this the “filter effect” as features of embodied human relationships are removed from our social interactions. We have all heard the complaints about technology disconnecting us from embodied human community, and to be sure, there are clear instances where this is problematic. Yet many of these complaints are too hasty. Communications experts have studied the effect of email on human communication and have noted that certain personalities are less inhibited and more communicative in writing than they are in person. Not everyone has been blessed with graceful social skills, good looks, a magnetic personality, and confidence in speech. The filtering effect of email, in a way, levels the playing field between two communicators by removing those barriers, and makes room for other properties of good communication to emerge like linear thought and artful prose. This goes to show that the loss of knowledge about another’s body language does not necessarily imply that we have lost the best knowledge available about another person.
A better way to think of social technology like Twitter and Facebook is not to think of them as filters, but as enablers. They enable human communication more conveniently than ever. The Washington Post article makes the interesting observation about what Weiner’s dalliances would be like before the digital age:
But 20 years ago, Weiner would have had to load his Nikon with film before pointing it at his crotch. He would have had to take this film to the Fotomat, wait 24 hours before picking it up, find an envelope, lick a stamp. In every preceding era, there were built-in checkpoints, moments in which one could ask oneself, “Is this a good idea? Does she want to see my dog in a sweater? Am I a congressman? Should that influence my decision?”
These actions are weighed against those today, “Click. Here are my genitals!” In light of the perceived imbalance, the writer asks “Does that make me a cheater?” I think the answer is obviously yes, but there is an important intuition she stumbles upon. 20-year-old technology took a greater amount of intentionality to pull off this sort of social connection. It took more time and more resources. The mind had to be focused more on carrying out each step for a longer period of time. That does count for something, but this doesn’t make the actions of clicking a picture of your crotch with an iPhone and then uploading it to Twitter morally less serious. Though the process is easier, faster, and more efficient its effects are just as concrete. More frighteningly, it can be disseminated just as easily by the receiver to a larger audience. The problem is that we don’t understand the power of the technology we are using–not that our actions are somehow less real because they are instant.
[Cross-posted at 20 Times Around the Block]
June 8th, 2011 | 1:01 pm | #1
“We treat our virtual lives as if they have the same meaning, depth and repercussions as our offline lives, which is a noble impulse. ”
The premise of this, and articles like this, is that the above is true.
I don’t see it. I have no doubt that there are people who get so caught up in Facebook world that they operate as though there’s no meaningful difference between a Facebook “friend” and an actual friend; that looking at someone’s pictures is like being at the party; that clicking on a cause is like doing something, etc.
I don’t happen to *actually know any of them.* I’ll start taking articles like this seriously the day I become convinced that Facebook vs. real life confusion is a widespread problem among otherwise healthy people over the age of 15, or that it’s a problem that is unique to Facebook and not simply another manifestation of the way immature or mentally unhealthy people will choose to live in worlds of their own making rather than the real one, which actually did happen prior to the 21st century.
June 8th, 2011 | 2:19 pm | #2
I’m going to interject another effect I see in the Facebook fallacy. If the Facebook fallacy creates a lesser view of the human person, I see it’s effects on actual human interaction.
I work in pastoral ministry, and often spend a lot of time with 20-somethings. One of the biggest hungers and heart desires of these folks is for true and genuine and healthy friendships. Often, these folks complain to me that I don’t create enough contexts for community development, and they tell me how awkward it is for in various ministry settings- bible studies, etc.- since they don’t know other people. I ask them: “Well, why don’t you go and talk to them then?” It never occurs to them to do it on their own, and rarely does anyone actually do it.
It just floors them that I tell them to actually initiate a conversation in person if they indeed crave healthy relationships. It’s really the only way it happens. I’m amazed at how this simple, fundamental, and human reality is news to them. The desire is still latent for human relationships, but the Facebook fallacy sees them as a scary, awkward, and stranger of a person.
June 8th, 2011 | 4:53 pm | #3
Unless you have in view an abstract metaphysical notion of a person’s being which clearly is not diminished while communicating via technology, I don’t see how this is the case. The reality of a person’s being is diminished through technological mediation not in a metaphysical sense, but in the clear sense that humans are embodied and technology literally comes in between bodies in significant, non-neutral ways that are formative of communication and of the relationship.
You get less of a person if you are talking with them over the phone or typing emails than talking with them in person. Every husband and wife who is separated by distance for a lengthy time understands this. It is certainly true that such technologically mediated communication is better than nothing, but to say that there’s no personal diminution compared to presence in the flesh doesn’t seem to value the body as it ought to be valued.
I guess it comes down to exactly what communications technologies do and what they don’t do, what is gained and what is lost. My sense from your examples of positive enablings is that you’d like to highlight the apparent good consequences because you believe communications technologies are not appreciated enough.
Judging from the sheer proliferation of communications technologies, I am not so sure. Rather, I think there’s a dearth of change in our practices arising out of critical evaluation (if we’re aware of good critiques) because our society is so invested in it already and so heavily saturated in a sense that we are really minds “controlling” our bodies, which aren’t essentially us. So if we can’t read body language, it’s okay because it’s not the “best” knowledge available about the other person. Well, maybe, though I’m not sure what criteria would be used to determine “the best” knowledge; but it is knowledge that is irreplaceable and real and deeply profound. It is different from knowledge of interests and hopes, etc. and not replaceable. Communications technologies can obscure that.
Aside from the significance of bodily presence, there are the issues surrounding the ways particular technologies shape communications and relationships not just in “different” ways, but in ways that make us into different kinds of people who are more capable of technologically mediated communication, but less capable of other sensibilities, ethoi and behaviors (see link below). And there is a loss in that change.
I agree technology opens up new possibilities of communicating that are better than nothing and its power can even allow certain goods to come about that cannot easily be done otherwise. But just because fast food is better than nothing doesn’t keep it from tending to create obese and diabetic Americans depending on the formal qualities on the food in question. And there are other benefits to slow-food as well. One can say the same for communications tech as well.
Here you go, and this after only 20-ish years of the internet; we’ll see more as the portion of America who grew up with the internet becomes larger than the older portion: Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality
June 9th, 2011 | 12:03 pm | #4
[...] “The Facebook Fallacy.” There’s only one? [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact