Photograph by Kris Krüg of Static Photography (cc)
Many arguments against the power of social media stem from the fact that face-to-face interaction is fundamentally different than the exchanges that take place on Twitter, Facebook, and any number of other social media platforms. I had the chance to hear Malcolm Gladwell speak on Innovation and limitation at F5 Expo last week and while I did agree with his main point, that social media is not something to replace the strong ties we build through interacting with one another in person, I didn’t think this idea was at all original or thought provoking. In fact, I though it was beyond obvious to most, if not all, of us in the room.
Don’t get me wrong here. I really appreciate that Gladwell takes a step back to look at things from a different angle and I believe that we need people in this world to make us question our common beliefs. However, one thing I would like to know is where this idea came from that even the social media enthusiasts see social media to be the be-all and end-all. Who is this expert who declared that social media could successfully replace human, face-to-face, interaction? I personally have never thought of social media as something to replace face-to-face interaction. Quite the contrary, I love using the medium as a way to facilitate even more live interactions in my day-to-day life. I’m not alone here either. For proof, one only has to look to the proliferation of “tweet-ups” (A real-life meeting organized on the social networking site Twitter) or live events promoted on Facebook. Even the fact that everyone at the F5 Expo was there, interacting with one another in person, speaks to this point.
I guess what frustrated me about Gladwell’s speech was not that he was questioning the value of social media – I think that it’s important for all of us to take a good hard look at any innovation we are adopting as part of our everyday lives. No, what frustrated me was I didn’t feel his point applied to many of us there. Days after the conference, I learned – via social media – that Malcolm Gladwell doesn’t actually have a twitter account (@Malcgladwell is actually a fake). His talk then made a lot more sense to me as I realized he was speaking from the point of view of somebody outside of this community looking in. I would love to hear what other people at F5 thought about Gladwell’s presentation or, what concerns you have about the social media phenomenon and it’s potential costs to society. Maybe some of you gained some insight that I’ve missed.
- Rosa Meyer
12 Comments
Great post Rosa!
I agree 100%.
’nuff said.
I read another post about Gladwell’s presentation that had me thinking, even though I wasn’t at F5. This had to do with the strong-tie/weak-tie kinds of connections we make. My interpretation of the other post was that Gladwell was (generally) associated “social media” connections w/ weak ties, and face-to-face w/ strong ties.
Interestingly, I am reading a book about “strong ties” (“soul” connections) that makes a case for an archaic form of social media (the letter) as an opportunity for very strong-tie relationships.
I’m not a fan of tech reductionism. I watched my 3 older kids do an incredible job of building connections using a variety of “social media” – texting, telephone, MSN, etc, and later Facebook. I’m watching my youngest as a teen maintain his strongest connections via Skype and online games. I also see and watch a lot of people fumble badly in f2f situations. Sometimes f2f is just too much information to handle at one time, in one place.
There are few if any black/white situations when it comes to humans and how we communicate. I like what the Shel Israel says in Twitterville: that we are social creatures, and we will use whatever tools are at hand to explore our sociability (I’m paraphrasing here). In my life, the most social of media I’ve found is the ballroom dance floor, aided and abetted by those of us who are raging foodies/party-hosts. We are, in turn, supported by email, Facebook, posters in dance-store windows, and even Twitter as we pursue our dance fixes.
It’s not the tools. It’s our passion to connect. In myriad ways. And I think that the strong tie/weak tie dichotomy isn’t a real-life reality. It’s a fear, that we’ll lose something important.
So my question is: What are we losing? Are we losing loved ones to content (ie. porn “addiction,” gaming “addiction”)? Or were they already lost? Is my teenage son a full-on gamer because of the tech? Or because his family is fragmented and we’re not engaging him in real-time/real-space conversation, chores, physical and social activities? I’ve watched the other kids go through various levels of screen fixation. I watched it in myself. I’m still a screen-junkie. But I’m also intensely social in a f2f way.
I think we like to be social. We like to engage. We like to explore the new. I think some of us are, by nature/nurture strong tie folks, and some are weak tie folks. I think this can change. Ironically, I’m watching a bunch of weakly tied folks become much more strongly tied together with the assistance of a variety of social media: not just Facebook and Twitter, but social dancing, big dinner parties, and numerous cocktail hours. Not to mention walks in the woods and by the seaside.
@hanspetermeyer
Hanspetermeyer Love your comment! Well said! I totally agree. Thanks for the incredibly insightful and well thought out comment.
I learn it all from my daughter (well, not all of it…
Enjoying this post Rosa. I have colleagues (with PhDs in Communications) and friends who hold strong opinions about the value of social media without ever having really engaged with that medium. And curiously, when I was casting about for pubIications on Social media I noticed that there is very little actual new research on social media. Lots of people use it, lots of people talk about it. But few are choosing to really study it.
Great post Rosa! I feel the same way. Social Media enhance and enable real life connections for those looking to grow them. Some people use social media to enhance existing relationships, some to build new ones and some to sell widgets.
Gladwell, is a non-participant, an outsider who through talking to others that ‘just don’t get it’ or complain ‘no one is connecting with my business’ has come to believe in looser ties.
Vancouver has proven itself that Social Media needs real life interactions to be taken to the next level and to allow people to reach beyond the digital bond into real life.
What a great resource!
Hey I think you have a great blog going here, I found it on Bing and plan on returning regularly for the information that you all are providing.
Thank you so much for the kind words! We are getting a great deal out of blogging so we’re glad that somebody else is getting something out of it too. If you have any questions about social media or online marketing, don’t hesitate to pipe up. We’re always on the lookout for new material and we want to keep our content valuable to our audience, you.
I am the first time on this site and am really enthusiastic about and so many good articles. I think it’s just very good.
Great site Rosa!
I love Gladwell too, but I am shocked to hear he would give a talk on social media/twitter without actually being a part of the community. His value added is his story telling ability. I bet everybody still loved him once he was done. I watched him give a Ted Talk online about ketchup and I loved it.
Thanks for the comment Alex! I wouldn’t mind tracking down that ketchup talk! Sounds entertaining at the very least. He is an incredible storyteller.