facebook and the distorted truth
DESCRIPTION
This academic essay explores the question in how far the identity created on the internet-based platform facebook.com can be seen as a virtual representation of reality or staged performance. It participates in the postmodern art-theoretical, cultural and sociological discussion, searching for an account of representation, virtuality and performativity within the "metapyhsics of facebook".It takes an art-theoretical perspective by strongly incorporating the ancient Greek notion of "mimesis" and arguing that facebook distorts the truth about people.Milosz Paul Rosinski, Maastricht UniversityTRANSCRIPT
Milosz Paul Rosinski 1
Facebook and the Distorted Truth
Milosz Paul Rosinski 2
Table of Contents Introduction 3 I. Introducing Facebook 4
II. Facebook as a Mimetic Representation 5
2.1 The Good Old Days of Virtuality 5
2.2 The Flexibility of Truth 6
III. The Epistemic Mode and Problems 6 3.1 All the Virtual Wall’s a Stage 7 3.2 Aristotle wrote “Mimesis rocks!” on his wall. 8 3.3 Facebook as Panopticon 8 3.4 Facebook as Disneyland 10 IV. Plato’s guidance for the use of facebook 12
4.1 Plato commented “Mimesis sucks” on Aristotle’s Status. 12 Conclusion 14 References 15 Appendix 16
Milosz Paul Rosinski 3
Introduction “I rather make a life than make a living”
A Facebook user’s status message
from Zhao et al. (2008), p.1828
Facebook.com creates the opportunity of a representation of your self. The platform
represents ‘faces’ in an internet-based network or ‘book’, publishing an own virtual reality. A
personal representation is a 'profile', containing visual and verbal media. 300 million people
up to now created their own profiles and ‘context’ or network1. These interactions are not
merely kept online, the virtual and real interact.
The unity and differentiation between reality and appearance is discussed since Plato and
Aristotle. As facebook users create an appearance based on a desired real life representation,
the ancient discussion is still relevant today. Facebook as a commercial company is interested
in making people dependent to maximize time spent online2. With both rapidly increasing
users and time spent in the virtual world3 the individuals’ dependency grows. Why do people
consume this virtual world? People use facebook to ‘get to know about people’ (Pempek et
al., 2009). Thus, one could say for epistemological reasons. This brings Plato and Aristotle
back in the discourse. The ancient philosophers have opposing ideas about epistemology,
based on different notions of reality and appearance. The attempt is made to converge Plato’s
and Aristotle’s concepts with the contemporary phenomenon of facebook.
This essay proposes that the use of facebook can be categorized into two types. The first
category is the method of mimetic representation. The second category is facebook as a
device to induce knowledge from appearances, in the following labeled epistemic mode. This
approach is used to expand the academic discussion based on Kelley (2007) and Zhao et al.
(2008) further beyond facebook as an identity building and communication device. As
introduced above, reality and appearance encompass and interact with each other on
facebook. Plato argues that problems arise when reality and appearance encompass. This is
relevant when using facebook in its epistemic mode. The problem is that the virtual
representations are mimetical representations of reality. Thus, according to Plato the epistemic
use is problematic. Yet, it is one of the main uses of facebook. This essay argues that
facebook deludes perceptions of people’s reality. 1 http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics 2 Revenues are mainly collected through advertisements displayed online, increasing with page impressions. 3 Op. cit. 1
Milosz Paul Rosinski 4
The following approach is chosen to evaluate this argument. Firstly, facebook is briefly
introduced in general. Secondly, the method of mimetic representation is described. Thirdly,
the specific epistemic mode and its problems to use facebook are presented. Fourthly, a
normative evaluation of the epistemic mode follows based on Plato’s The Republic. Lastly, a
conclusion and further research suggestions are proposed.
I Introducing Facebook
Before elaborating on the epistemic mode of facebook, in this section a brief introduction to
facebook follows. Please note the appendix (pp 16) for Figure 1 up to Figure 3 visualizing
facebook.
Facebook is a commercial enterprise offering an online world of personal representations. The
company was founded in 2004 by a Harvard sophomore student.1 Up to now the service is
free of charge and is financed through customized advertisements. After Google it is the
webpage with the second highest amount of page impressions1. The innovation that
popularized facebook rapidly to more than 300 million users is its’ service to create an online
representational network. One indicator of the significance of facebook is that more than 70%
of the users spend between 10 and 60 minutes daily on the platform (Ross et al, 2009). In
comparison to email or instant messaging, facebook does not limit to online person-to-person
communication. The core of facebook is the profile containing various media mimetically
representing a person. It is the function quantitatively most often used (Pempek et al., 2009).
The most important profile features are the profile picture and the wall, which are often
referred to in this essay. Therefore a short description of the two representational devices
follows.
The profile picture is the standard avatar of each user or the visual representation. The wall is
an online bulletin board that each user has. The wall posts are essentially public and address
all facebook friends as an audience. Its’ content is created both by the represented person and
by spectators. The wall illustrates the two possibilities of using facebook as a performer and a
spectator. In the following it is introduced how and why people represent themselves online. 1 Ibid.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 5
Officially facebook’s service is to “keep up with friends, upload pictures, and to learn about
people”.2 This essay therefore introduces mimetic representation and epistemic mode as the
two major modes of use, based on the above mentioned official definition and recent research
as for example Zhao et al. (2008). First, general mimetic characteristics are introduced (II)
which are further exemplified in their specific epistemic mode (III).
II. Facebook as a Mimetic Representation
This section explains how facebook can be seen as a mimetic representation. People present
themselves in two ways as a Me and the Social Self (Zhao et al., 2008). These representational
categories are not mutually exclusive, but overlapping. Based on Me and Social Self, Zhao et
al suggest that people use facebook to “get to know about people”. This implies that people
represent each other online and infer from these representations about the real persons.
Pempek et al (2009) furthermore denote that it is not only inducing of knowledge, but people
want to get to know people better. The fact that users get to know each other better means the
online environment creates opportunities which were hitherto unexplored offline. This
observation can be explained with two approaches. Firstly, people could see in Plato’s words
eternal forms in the facebook environment. Secondly, another approach is to regard it from a
social constructivist point of view that people represent themselves in the way others see
them. Both approaches lead to methodological problems concerning the epistemic mode of
facebook which are partly due to the portals’ environment.
There are two specific characteristics of the environment considering the mimetic
representations of persons. Firstly, the facebook is in-between real and virtual. Secondly, the
truth is flexible on facebook.
2.1 The Good Old Days of Virtuality
Facebook is not a virtual representation, it is in-between real and virtual. It is common to
speak about “real persons” and “virtual avatars”, but one essential characteristic of facebook
is its in-between status. Even though the virtual users are only representations, their online
actions have consequences in the offline world (Pempek et al., 2009). The interaction of
reality and virtuality can be exemplified with the gifts people can buy online for real offline 2 Ibid.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 6
money and give these “material” gifts to other facebook users. These gifts are only online
appearances without any equivalent offline. Another point is that whatever people do on
facebook holds consequences in the offline world. It is even more evident vice versa, as most
of the things represented online are “material” and “themes” from offline. So although,
intuitively the concept of offline and online exist, it seems outdated to apply this notion when
equating it with real and virtual to facebook. The virtual and real do not only interact with
each other, they are encompassed.
2.2 The Flexibility of Truth
The truth is elusive on facebook. The representations are not the identities established in the
real world, rather they are hoped-for-possible selves (Zhao et al, 2008). This is the case as
facebook is used as a device for how one would like to appear. The possibility of editing
one’s identity is easier in the online environment. One can play with offline conventions and
show in-group characteristics that are more easily demonstrated online than offline. Because
of its technical possibilities, the platform can be used to create an idealized or romanticized
portrayal of one’s identity. This tendency is further discussed in 3.3. In general users project a
self that is socially desirable, in order to increase social capital gained in the environment, as
Ellison (2007) proposes. Subject to the environment, users represent themselves to better
situate within the given social milieu. As Zhao (2008) puts it, both Me and Social Self (cf. II)
can be presented well on pictures. In fact most of the pictures uploaded on facebook show
people together with others. The person is contextualized through portrayal with their social
peer group. This is an example of setup in the social context rather than as individual. This
makes it difficult to perceive characteristics of individual and not group members.This is
mostly achieved with the attribute of “show don’t preach” in the Flaubertian sense of trying
to present the things “as they are”, appearing objectively “true”. It seems legitimized, to
therefore stretch the truth a bit, to make a well-rounded appearance, being better and
essentially cooler than the real. These above mentioned general characteristics lead to specific
epistemological problems.
III. The Epistemic Mode and Problems
Based on the above mentioned general mimetic characteristics the epistemic mode is
introduced and with that specific epistemological problems. Users do not see facebook as a
Milosz Paul Rosinski 7
virtual fictional and artistic representation, but as a interaction of reality and a virtual world
(cf.2.1) . Additionally, the representations are not copies of offline identities, but mimetic
represenations created to appeal socially (cf.2.2). In the following section the epistemic mode
of facebook is evaluated (3.1) and the problems illustrated that lead to a deluded perception of
a person based on epistemic use of facebook. Plato’s guidelines of facebook use follow
afterwards in IV.
There are four epistemological problems exemplified in this section: The facebook wall as a
performative stage, the mimetic enjoyment of wall poetry, facebook as a Panopticon and
lastly facebook as Disneyland.
3.1 All the Virtual Wall’s a Stage
The facebook wall as introduced in (I) is the main device used on the platform.
Shall I compare Thy to a Facebook Wall?
Wall posts and status messages can be seen as poetic. 'A form of art which imitates life
through words’ is the common definition of poetry of Aristotle (Andersen, & Haarberg,
2001). Thus, based on Aristotle’s definition the status messages are poetic. The facebook
statuses are used as an expression of feelings and ideas, as for instance Kelley (2007)
identified. When typing a message into the status field “What’s on your mind?” appears in
the text field. This can be seen as an appeal for expression. “What’s on your mind?” does not
mean to reveal the truth about yourself. The idea is to entertain others with interesting poetic
expressions, compared to for example Twitter1 where people are encouraged to answer What
are you doing? to virtually synchronize news and real occurrences. Zhao et al. (2008)
identified two particular themes that people express. Facebook statuses are mostly reflections
on life or expressing a positive attitude about life. People share particular insights about their
life, with a reflective attitude. Most of these statements are revealing minimal information and
have a wouldn’t you like to know? attitude (Zhao et al., 2008). Secondly, people tend to
express positive emotions online. For instance, there is a norm to stage romantic relationships
online by writing poetic messages to each other (Pemplek et al., 2009). This shows the
1 Twitter.com is a blogging service for sending and reading tweets (SMS like messages up to 140 characters). The service became publicly renowned after protestors twittered from Iran during the 2009 post-election demonstrations because of the rigorous censorship of conventional communication.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 8
dramatization of reality with the use of poetry. In general people rather stage entertainment
than revealing truth about them.
3.2 Aristotle wrote “Mimesis rocks!” on his wall.
People enjoy the mimetic pleasure facebook provides. People put twice as much posts on
walls as private messages (Zhao et al., 2008). People seem to prefer to use the online post-its
to perform with each other. As the posts are mostly poetic (cf. 3.1) the “mimetic pleasure” is
indeed wallowed. Every human being enjoys imitations according to Aristotle’s Poetics and
poetry can provide moral insights. Also emotions are educated and purified with katharsis.
The imitations online can represent reality in their own way and not as a realistic copy.
Aristotle claims human actions can be imitated through art, as for instance through drama. As
described in 3.1 human actions are put into dramatic categories of tragedy and comedy, as
illustrated with the staging of romantic relationships. This implies that people use facebook as
a means to stage entertaining performances.
Indeed, faceboom is used as a performance for an audience. Pempek et al (2009) show more
than 40% of the facebook users are interested in presenting for an audience. People stage
representations to an inflated amount of spectators compared to offline possibilities, as for
instance friends of friends (i.e. unknown people) have access to the performances. However,
the fact that unknown people have access to information offline kept private raises problems.
3.3 Facebook as Panopticon
The perception of people changes with the installation of facebook in a way of an inflated
amount of information. The epistemological problems that come up with this can be
categorized into voyeurism, transparency and surveillance.
Voyeurism
“Facebook is extremely voyeuristic – there's something great, and at the same time, creepy, about knowing when someone you haven't talked to in 5 years broke up with their boyfriend who you never even met.”
A facebook user in Pempek et al (2009), p. 235 Not only do people enjoy mimetic representations, there seems to be a desire to get to know
as much “vulgar” information as possible out of the platform. People can spend time lurking
Milosz Paul Rosinski 9
for information without the offline normative cost of being nabbed. This increased
accessibility of information combined with a decreased cost of access leads to facebook being
an interesting platform for searching for information about people – on the basis that it is
provided.
Transparency
The degree of transparency and self-disclosure is high on facebook (Kelley, 2007). Having a
“worth noticing” profile is positively correlated with the degree of disclosure of privacy. The
burden of embarrassment is arguably lower in the online environment compared to an offline
person-to-person disclosure. So, more disclosure is online necessary to be interesting for
online spectators. Also the distinctive features of the environment facilitate transparency. The
basic setting on facebook is to disclose information to all facebook friends. This is congruent
to the commercial interest of maximization of time spent online to proportionally increase
advertisement revenues. Expressions or information about people interacting are recorded and
can openly be accessed ex post among friends. Actually people can restrict accessibility to
information, but this decreases the entertaining or voyeuristic value for the audience and is
therefore seldom executed (Kelley, 2007). However, this makes information for people
available that possibly would not be present in an offline setup. Therefore, people’s
perception is influenced by the virtual representation in a disproportionate way compared to
the real world. This leads to the problem that people due to online information actually know
more about a person than without facebook.
Surveillance Facebook seems to be a world of perfect surveillance. Due to the setup of the facebook
platform a high degree of keeping facebook friends under surveillance is possible. The
systematic documentation and recording of all information personally incorporated in the
platform can be publicly disclosed as a facebook friend of the person. Before the technical
innovation arguably this degree of surveillance compared to a Panopticon would be every
secret service’s dream. Additionally everything that is incorporated in the platform is property
of facebook as a company, based on the General Terms and Conditions Act. Proceeding from
the assumption that most users habitually do not think about this, they are unaware of their
factual donation of copyright. Another point showing that users are well aware of the
surveillance possibilities of facebook is the transformation of the online representation due to
Milosz Paul Rosinski 10
audience changes. As Kelley (2007) points out, users change their profiles according to
audience conventions. An illustrating example is graduation as a “rite of passage” from
university in the sense of entrance of the working life. Graduation seems to include the
cleanup of facebook photos portraying blushless behavior, which is considered inappropriate
in the new audience. This shows the representative character of the network as student users
perceive employers to be under surveillance. Although people can restrict access to
information, they refuse to do so. Perhaps they want to entertain themselves and take the risk
of being nabbed.
3.4 Facebook as Disneyland
This part of the epistemological problems concerning the use of facebook shows the
idealization or romanticization of information of facebook. People as already introduced in
2.2 produce socially desirable representations. The epistemological problems concerning this
are enforcing consumerism, creativity, denial of academic identity and affirmation.
Enforcing Consumerism
Facebook profiles project a superficial hedonist image of people. As both Kelley (2007) and
Zhao et al. (2008) noted, the information on facebook profiles is portraying a particular
hedonist lifestyle. For instance themes as leisure activities and consumption experiences are
used to “show” the social belongingness to a particular group. Most Facebook users provide
enumerative lists of preferences signaling precise material tastes (Zhao et al., 2008). It is in
the commercial interest of facebook to strengthen an identity of persons based on materialism,
as advertisements displayed online work with an algorithm that tries to suit material interests
of people and proposes direct additional shopping opportunities. Additionally people are
proposed music and books through advertisements, as this is the information mostly provided
in facebook “About Me” sections.
Everyone’s creative at facebook.
The type of “About Me” information is strongly skewed at “creative” information. As
Pemplek et al. (2009) introduce, more than 60% of the people include favorite music, movies
and books in their personal wall info. It seems that people contextualize themselves with
Milosz Paul Rosinski 11
identification to particular art works. Music is the information the quantitatively most often
used. On average Pemplek et al. denote eight songs per user in their sample. With that
information people can easier identify a specific taste of a person, compared to an offline
setting. It seems music has a particular power of identification and representation of a person.
People perceive each other as an aggregate of songs they listen to. However, it is just
information “told” on the profile and unlike in reality where people have to “show” in a
conversation or a concert that they are really in the particular in-group. So, the creativity is
used to appear cool to a particular group and a “nerd” image is anticipated.
There are no nerds on facebook.
The academic identity is not present in facebook profiles among students (Pempek et al.,
2008). Interestingly, compared to the offline norm students seem not to identify themselves
via the particular classes they are attending. Users have the option of listing classes and using
this as a mimetic device. However, this is counterintuitive against the idealized cool
representation and is therefore seldom used (Zhao et al, 2008). There is a form of avoiding
being perceived as a “nerd” or a person that identifies himself through university. As
exemplified in the paragraphs above with the creative profile info and now with the denial of
an academic identity, people seem to represent a part of their reality that is offline associated
to leisure. This leads to the problem of a de facto misrepresentation of persons, based on their
idealized portrayal. Yet, people infer knowledge about people based on this information.
Affirm or Hush
Another point is that wall posts as a medium of discussion are mostly affirmative. For
example, there was a discussion on Barack Obama’s profile about the Nobel Peace Prize 2009
award. Barack was humbled and 53,545 people like this1. Mostly people congratulated or
clicked on thumbs-up as illustrated in the appendix (p.17). Interestingly, there is no option to
thumbs-down analogously to thumbs-up. This would minimize the pleasure experienced on
the wall and therefore minimize the amount of time spent online, which is intuitively against
the commercial interest. People would not enjoy spending time online to read public criticism.
Based on the environment an affirmative utopia is created. It is not possible to “get to know”
people better just based on their agreement. Yet, the facebook environment intentionally
creates an epistemological gap which users have to be aware of.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 12
IV. Plato’s guidance for the use of facebook
Derived from the mimetic representational problems (II) and the specific epistemic problems
(III) in this section the hypothetical guidance of Plato concerning reality construction of
people in society based on facebook follows.
4.1 Plato commented “Mimesis sucks” on Aristotle’s Status.
There are two epistemological problems that Plato addresses in his Republic that are relevant
in the context of facebook. Firstly, the problem of appearances follows and secondly the
addiction to mimetic representations.
Appearances
According to Plato, users cannot make inferences about persons based on their appearances
but merely based on ideal forms. Facebook relies on appearances (e.g. photographs) and
poetic statuses and therefore cannot be used for the search of how a person is, but only how a
person appears. Also, facebook profiles are a flaw and imperfect copies of reality. People
should not spend time with the imperfect, (Ferrari, 2007). Appearances are tempting and
misleading and it is therefore not possible to infer about persons based on their appearances.
There is no possibility to know if a facebook profile is really representing a person.
Even Plato himself is posthumously represented online. Please note the cover page and
appendix (p.16) for illustrations. Some person capable of imitating Plato on facebook
posthumously revived him as an appearance. The representation survives the physical death of
the original. It is in the power of the person administering the representation of Plato’s
facebook profile to judge its real existence. This example illustrates that the appearances on
facebook can exists without a reality backing them up. This is not a problem if people are
aware of this, but people can be incapable to distinguish between imitations and reality.
Facebook even intensifies the problem of discriminating between reality and appearances.
According to Plato, people have to accept the representations on facebook as a drama and not
1 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/barackobama?ref=ts
Milosz Paul Rosinski 13
refer to it as real. As facebook encompasses both reality and the virtual appearances (cf. 2.1)
an important skill to develop is the discrimination between these two modes of being. When
not developed well enough, the perception of people represented online influences the real
perception of the people in a deluded way. Plato argues ones’ reason is not in full control of
one’s action and people irrationally pursue the vulgar. Because “the sun always shines on
facebook” (cf. 3.4) it can make addictive, as people enjoy spending time in a better than real
world.
Addiction
Facebook is a simplified and dramatic representation. Firstly, facebook represents life simple
and clear, unlike the real world. People could start to think that reality is as pure and simple as
represented. Also the forms of interaction are simplified. Even though the means of
representation are technically state of the art, in terms of human interaction they are simple.
With the use of wall posts "nuances of voice and intonations are stripped away" as well as
"'no glances or shrugs or iconic smiles" are technically possible (Kelley, 2007, p.18). This can
lead to addiction to the simplified or flat representations compared with the complexities of
real life.
Secondly, facebook makes a drama out of life. Facebook as an endless soap-opera dramatizes
life to comedies and tragedies. People should be characters and not playing dramatic roles,
according to Plato. The pictures and wall posts are aimed to provoke emotions. These
emotions, according to Plato can be vulgar and corrupting the soul. The vulgar corrupts the
soul in the way that people pursue something untrue. The appearances appeal to an inferior
part of the soul unconcerned with truth (Ferrari, 2007). People have appetite for vulgar
pleasures and by satisfying it places the vulgar in their souls (Ferrari, 2007). Kelley (2007)
shows that people perceive spending time on facebook as vulgar. Therefore user have the
tendency to limit time spent or have a bad conscious when having spent “too much” time on
facebook. They perceive facebook as a possibility to escape from problematic and complex
real life and watch the dramatic online world, which always has some entertainment to offer.
Facebook can make people addictive to the dramatic endless performances online.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 14
Conclusion
Facebook is an online platform offering a mimetic device for personal representation. The
general characteristics of the representation are the in-between of real and virtual and the
flexibility of the reality of persons represented. People use facebook mostly for its' use of
getting to know about people, in this essay labeled epistemic mode.
The inferences of truth about people based on their facebook profiles leads to problems.
Verbal facebook representations are poetic and enjoyed for their mimetic pleasure and are not
a realistic representation. Facebook inflates the amount of mostly transparent information
available about people, leading to a high degree of surveillance. Also facebook users idealize
information about themselves to appear creative and try to deny their academic indentity.The
problems Plato brings in the discussion are the problematic inference of truth about people
based on their appearance which is simplified and dramatized. For all the reasons mentioned
above, facebook deludes the perception of people’s reality.
Plato provides some guidance for the use of facebook. People should not make inferences
based on the online appearances and accept it as simplified drama. Besides that people should
be aware of the dangers of addiction that facebook provides. This paper limited to the very
basic evaluation of facebook hallucinating people's perception about each other. Further
research could continue to focus on the motivations of people using the platform. Also the
concept of seeing facebook as part of the reality compared to a substitute could abolish the
epistemological “tumbling stone” of the virtual and real distinction prevailing so far.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 15
References Andersen, Ø & Haarberg, J.(Eds). (2001). Making Sense of Aristotle. Essays in
Poetics. London: Duckworth Publishers Conway, S. (1996). Plato, Aristotle, and Mimesis. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from:
www.subverbis.com/essays/mimesis.rtf Ellison, N., et al. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College
Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 12, 1143-1168
Ferrari, G.R.F.(Eds).(2007). The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press Introna, L. (2005). Phenomenological Approaches to Ethics and Information Technology. The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 12, 2009 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-it-phenomenology/
Kelley, F.L.(2007). Face-Time: The Construction of Identity on Facebook. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send- pdf.cgi/Kelley%20Faith%20L.pdf?acc_num=muhonors1178214020
Nehamas, A. (1999). Plato and the Mass Media. In The Virtues of Authenticity: Essays on
Plato and Socrates. Princeton: Princeton University Press Pappas, N.(2009). Plato's Aesthetics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
October 12, 2009 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/ Pempek, A. et al. (2009). College students' social networking experiences on Facebook.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 30, 227-238 Zhao,S. et al.(2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored
relationships.Computers in Human Behavior. 24, 1816–1836
Milosz Paul Rosinski 16
Appendix
Figure 1.A typical facebook profile, in this case Plato.
Figure 2. A News Feed.
Milosz Paul Rosinski 17
Figure 3.Barack Obama’s facebook statement to the Nobel Peace Prize 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/posted.php?id =6815841748&share_id=154954250775&comments=1#s154954250775