I thoroughly enjoyed reading E.J. Westlake's article this week, Friend Me if You Facebook Generation Y and Performative Surveillance. As an avid Facebook user, I thought her panoptic and biopolitical analysis of the social networking website was quite accurate in developing her argument. She argues that performances of identities are in continuous development and that through the restrictive Facebook interface and self-policing they reproduce social norms while at the same time, blur the boundaries of normative categories. Westlake's idea of performance is, all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on the observers.” (Westlake, 26). Facebook today, is a global network that allows for a wider audience and in turn, encourages mass exhibitionism to users with hundreds or even thousands of Facebook 'friends'.
The mass exhibitionism permitted by Facebook blurs multiple normative oppositions, creating tensions of conceptualized boundaries. Westlake contends, “Facebook…allow[s] people to share information online the same way they do in the real world. This tension between specificity and generality, and local and global, affects the ways in which communities of users perform their identities.” (Westlake, 23). For instance, many students enjoying using Facebook to meet new classmates and learn more about their peers from the information that they have posted on their profiles. However, they feel uncomfortable and stalked when others do the same and know about them through Facebook. (Westlake, 33). This creates a conflict for the user and the specificity and generality of the information they post. If they are too general, they are not able to fully perform their identities and are not fulfilled through the Facebook experience. However, if they are too specific they risk divulging too much information to those they do not know inside and outside of their locality, making them ill at ease when being recognized for Facebook content. This uncomfortable feeling is also attributed to the reason why users post information that conforms to normative categories. Facebook is a site that encourages self-policing as well as the policing of others with their 'report' feature. The report feature gives other users the ability to aid in the removal of inappropriate content. Not only do other users but corporations, the government, and employers access information on Facebook, altering the ways in which users perform their identities. Thus, because of all these forms of surveillance I agree with Westlake's claim that Facebook is used more for perpetuating real-world normative behaviour than it is for expressing deviant behaviour (Westlake, 35). She notes that, "...an overwhelming majority of users do not exaggerate or highlight so-called deviant behavior...most information users present in online profiles depicts the lives of the actual users doing relatively mundane activities." (Westlake, 32). Thus, with surveillance from the government, companies, and other users, one never knows who is in the Panoptic tower and in consequence, has to perform their identity in a way that has all agents affirm their identity and thee easiest way to facilitate cooperation between all agents is to comply with societal norms.
Societal norms are further reinforced through the restrictive interface of the Facebook profile information page. While religion and political identities are openly constructed, gender is limited to the normative constraints of male and female, sexual preference is limited to male and female, relationship statues exclude polygamous relationships, and family relations deny adoptive ties and relationships with step parents/siblings. These limitations affect the validity of performed identities while maintaining norms opposed to societal progress of acceptance. Facebook too creates its own norms which mirrors society's ideas of acceptance. Once is criticized for having too many or too little friends and viewable feedback from one's Facebook friends is considered a sign of acceptance. In addition to having friends and maintaining constant communication with them, a Facebook user is expected to constantly update their personal information by frequently changing their status updates, profile pictures, and making posts. This shows how identities on Facebook are not static, they "...resist being fixed as rigid, unchanging subjects." (Westlake, 23). Continual changes and enhancement in the performance of one's identity and exercise of biopower are permitted through,"mini-applications within the Facebook...[that] enhances users' agency by allowing them to modify content and create an even greater volume of traffic...and 'staged' elements such as font, photographs, music, and graphics." (Westlake, 26-27). These technologic modifications biopolitically empower the individual to uniquely create themselves in ways different or similar to their real world identities, all while contributing to capitalism as they willingly divulge preferences and dislikes to the corporations that access their profile.
Westlake's argument is important because it identifies the tension between surveillance and performance. It is obvious through the article that on a large scale generation Yers do not mind being surveyed as millions disclose personal information to Facebook. However, the article is also important in showing that where there is power there is resistance. Users can create fake Facebook profiles to destabilize identity performances and blur the boundaries of what is considered a normative identity. Furthermore, resistance to power is shown through generation Y's use of Facebook groups to become more politically engaged and actively participate in real world power struggles. I am still confused with the importance of Facebook in regards to social interactions. While the article is clear in demonstrating that users of Facebook and multiple forms of communication have more face-to-face interaction, they do not indicate the effects Facebook has on face-to-face interaction. Instead, Westlake simply states, "...the rules of online communication will begin to compete with and perhaps dominate those of face-to-face social interactions." (Westlake, 30). Maybe it is too early to see these effects?
In dealing with this confusion I will pose the question: "In what ways has Facebook altered face-to-face social interactions?" One example Westlake identifies is the use of the word Facebook as a noun and verb. I would argue that other Facebook 'terminology' has changed face-to-face social interactions with many people saying the internet short forms of words such as "brb, lol, and g2g".
Supplementary Teaching Aids:
As discussed, Facebook has partnerships with many companies and governments. Now they may be partnering up with Skype:
A Facebook group that shows you how many hours you have spent on Facebook:
-I've spent 26 hours on facebook...not sure how reliable it is, I thought it would have been more
A website devoted to Facebook, featuring an article on the rise in time spent on Facebook:
A youtube video interpretation of Facebook if its activities were acted out in the real world:
I think there is a certain expectation now, among those of us on Facebook, that our fellow friends on Facebook will learn about what's happening in our lives through their news feed. No one bothers telling me when he or she breaks up with his or her significant other; apparently I'm just supposed to know about it by keeping track of relationship statuses on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily think this is a bad thing (aside from the relationship part, because I just ignore those). As someone who does not like making small talk, I appreciate that my friends can keep tabs on what I'm doing through Facebook so I don't have to recount endlessly my day. However, it's an interesting shift to note.
I would also argue that the facebook events page has changed social communications and relations because it gives users the option to RSVP "maybe" to an event blurring the levels of commitment. In the past, invitations made a guest commit to either attend or not attend an event.
ReplyDeleteAshley van