Ranting to /dev/null

Jumping to conclusions

A few days ago, this story the net. It purports to be an analysis of the class divisions apparent in the ways that people join either Facebook or MySpace. The first time I read it something struck me as wrong about it, and given some time to mull it over I think I can put it into words.

First of all, "class" is no longer really a term that makes any sense in the American context. The author recognizes this, but uses the term for lack of a better one. I think "subculture" is probably a better term, and though her distinction between "hegemonic" and "subaltern" is quite clearly politically motivated, there doesn't seem to be a non-political way of making that distinction (though "mainstream" and "alternative" is perhaps less inflammatory). But as the author recognizes, the terms are not largely economic in nature and describe the as-of-yet intangible melange of lifestyle, race, educational background, economic status, etc. The division does seem to cut cleanly across gender lines though.

But even with that in mind, the author seems to read more into the social groupings here than is strictly necessary. It is true that the "good" kids seem to join Facebook while alternative types and Hispanics tend to join MySpace in greater numbers. The latter I believe can be explained with absolutely no commentary on any kind of class: Facebook is in English. It has no capability that I'm aware of to do business in Spanish. MySpace, on the other hand, is customizable to the n-th degree. Ergo someone who wants their website to be in Spanish is not going to be particularly well-served by Facebook.

A related technological fact explains why the "subalterns" are going to be more attracted to the customizability of MySpace. Facebook is not about presenting a creative website to the world. It's about using established, efficient, polished channels to make connections with people while providing a space to put various "vital" information about yourself online. Originally, there was very little customizability of any kind, simply informational blocks you could fill in. It's only very recently that the admins of Facebook opened up their API to third-party applications, and these have been embraced with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But even to the extent that they have been adopted they're largely ancillary to the purpose of Facebook, which is about connections, not about creativity and individuality. Facebook doesn't even let you change your background, let alone your typeface. As subalterns are pretty much by definition interested in this, they're going to be drawn to a site that provides that functionality.

Same goes for people who self-identify as "queer" or "goth" or make association with any other sub-culture a major part of their identity. Facebook offers the standard binary gender choices for self-identification. The "Interested In" box is the extent to which one's orientation can be indicated beyond that. Someone who thinks that the distinction between "gay" and "queer" is worth making a big deal about isn't going to find these options particularly useful. Facebook is about presenting information in pretty standard categories. If you want to make a choice not on the drop-down list, you have to go somewhere else.

But I'm not sure that the inclusion of "transgendered" or some such would make Facebook any more attractive to that particular community. Facebook isn't about expressing your individuality. It's about presenting information. It's a placeholder, not a work of creativity. It's intended to present specific information in as efficient a manner as possible. If you care enough about your particular sub-culture to find the lack of the option of your choice distressing, you aren't really looking for a glorified digital phonebook (which is almost certainly where they got the name). You're looking for a blog.

Given these facts, I'm not sure that the divisions the author notes are of any significance. All social networking sites are not created equal (anyone remember Friendster or Xanga? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?). This isn't necessarily an example of social groups segregating themselves, especially now that anyone can join Facebook who wants to. It's about users making more-or-less rational choices about which social networking sites provide the functionality which interests them, e.g. a band who wants to have their music playing in the background won't use Facebook, because that site doesn't let you do that.

Though the article has received attention from various parties, I don't think the basic premise is sound. The divisions are caused by technological artifact, not social stratification.

Posted by ryan at June 27, 2007 07:10 AM | TrackBack