I succumbed to the social networking site obsession a long time ago. Social Networking websites are a fad as of late especially with the debut of Twitter. But, I'm curious, how do people handle themselves when they can be whoever they want? Secondly, what the fuck is a "hater"?
This research is a bit rough around the edges...all you see here that I've blogged, is an incorporated piece with the thoughts of all my poll respondents intertwined (and my thoughts of course). I am guilty of this; I have been a part of and a victim of this same culture. I've participated in twitter-rants and facebook revenge...if only to find that social networking and the competition to defend one's internet persona isn't really a means to an end. This is because our internet personas are not REAL.
But how does this make any sense? If I don’t like you or what you put on the internet, this does not mean I hate you. Period. It seems that anything ranging from curiosity to jealousy is perceived as hate. However, neither curiosity nor jealousy actually (fully) equate to hate. Let’s just say we didn’t have the internet or social networking sites and we were forced to always talk to one another in person…even when expressing only the thoughts we think are socially acceptable…this would grant us the opportunity to explain and possibly be better understood. If it is not our goal to be understood or to be amicably communicative, we still wouldn’t be able to hide behind the mask of social rejection that is having an adverse comment written about something we’ve said online. We would not be so easily able to play the victim.
No one has said to me that they feel that there aren’t people online who seriously do not like them…of course everywhere one goes, one will have adversity. The question here is…is it really all that far-fetched that one makes a comment because they wholeheartedly disagree, or perhaps they agree and they are simply showing you that they relate with you on something?
I am currently reading a book by my first Pyschology Professor from UVA, Jonathan Haidt. The Happiness Hypothesis theorizes that language came into existence for humans in order to enable gossip! We needed a way to be able to point fingers and tell others who is bad and who is good. Language came about as a replacement to physical presence and touch, due to the rapid expansion of the human network (instead of knowing just the people in our families, our brains are now capable of knowing/recalling several other people outside our familial circles). Now if this is true, social networking allows for the hyperbolic and trite practice of “pointing fingers” and it paints a false picture of many well-intentioned people in the process.
Do people call other haters simply because it’s a way to feel important? Or have the Hater Witch Trials given us yet another way to put down our fellow man simply because we characteristically (as a species) find it hard to trust others?
Now, I can't really say that there is actually such thing as a "hater". Internet personas are not indicative of a real person, although they may be in part...they are only the absolution of all things that a person feels is comfortable/OK/socially acceptable to put on the internet (about themselves). In this case of course, one is never getting the real deal. Let’s face it, the guy you think is cute…well he actually has really bad breath, he’s a white supremacist, and he wears hot pink thongs. These are all things we may never see online, but we’d assume the bad before we had a chance to connect…and this presumption is the problem. Rather than become a gateway to global and spontaneous connections, social networking has become an arena for defensive and fake academy award winning performances for the masses.
*Big thanks to all poll participants, you know who you are.*
Ya know, I agree with you. I actually don't post a great deal of how I think and feel because it might start something. MIGHT start something. And the people it would probably irritate is family that I barely talk about but once someone joins a(example) pro-life or I love Jesus group or whatever your passion is, those people will HAVE to comment and tear a new one. But of course they are allowed to feel the way they want to feel and they post of how ignorant their FB friends are, etc. It's just gross. You're right, the person you are on social networks are really not you. I've resigned myself to the fact that especially now that I own a business, everything is a "stage". I don't like it but I'd also prefer not to make any waves. I never thought I'd feel that way being a firm believer of being yourself no matter who is on the other end but seeing people you care about being attacked over nothing is just ridiculous, and not for me right now.
ReplyDeleteThank you Camille! You speak the truth!!
Jacqueline
XO
Thank you for your thoughts, Jacqueline.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you about everything being a "stage". It's as though society requires this false persona from everyone...look at celebs. Society has high expectations of our flawlessness and perfection no matter what the arena.
I raise social media personas as a question to those who actively participate...what could (morally) be so wrong about being yourself in all arenas? The answer is: the reactions we get from others. We are bound to be misinterpreted by default because we are humans but the likelihood of being misunderstood increases exponentially when expressing thoughts on the internet.
I think that once people realize that they succumb to saying and feeling only what is appropriate at times (and at least on the internet), they can simply be aware of the societal (and/or moral) rules that govern them.
I also believe that people exist on the internet, sometimes, as a more defensive/aggressive version of themselves and thus we are more self-centered(or immersed in the selling of a product we endorse, etc). As a result, we become closed off to social connection, a driving force in fledgling internet relationships, which is made more possible by social networking sites.
Awareness is the key to social change and at the end of day, you can't explain away all your decisions by stating that you fear (potential) social backlash.
Social Networking has become the new decade's version of the 1990's / new millennium chat room. Back in the day, many arguments held that online communities acted as an outlet for 'repressed' individuals to engage in social interaction unrestrained.
ReplyDeleteBy repressed individuals I mean the following: 1) Those that have difficulties with tete-a-tete style self expression. 2) Those whose interests/personality conflict with what has been socially prescribed for them (i.e. a black man who enjoys country music). 3) Those who have been outcast as socially repugnant.
Many of these types of individuals thus created extreme versions of their own personae. In many cases, one person could have as many as 3 or 4 different internet personalities.
Conflicts arise when those who use social networking sites to craft new personalities come in contact with the socially accepted, and these days unfortunately naive, who use these sites for what they were originally created to do (and are often still touted as such).
So many people now see the internet as a place where they can do and say 'whatever they want' that now, many social networking arenas have become a 'reality of fakeness'. Lying is a human condition and the internet allows for it with little to no consequence (i.e. verification).
When people engage in social networking, it is almost guaranteed that they will come across an invented persona. As a result, many have retaliated by completely hiding their actual personalities and thus sacrificing their original intent and opinions (in essence a completely opposite social construct).
After all this, I'd venture to say that the key to mitigating the extremities is simply knowing that they are there. Emotionally and socially speaking, surprises are not your friend.
I'm not even sure if this makes any sense... LOL.