Do you think this idea represents the exact reason that new social technologies become so popular? Is this the driving force behind revolutionary ideas like Facebook and Twitter?
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Question for Monday 10/11
On Page 74, in the chapter on Ritual Interaction Chains, Ling is analyzing Randall Collins's ideas on social interaction. "Collins argues that interaction rituals produce emotional energy, the gathering of which is a central motivating force for individuals. Affect is the engine of social order. Those interaction rituals that are the most effective in generating emotional energy are the ones that bolster institutional stability."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think that this idea represents the exact reason social technologies have become so popular. I feel that they are working on two completely different "ideas". Collins says that the whole setting of being within a group, with everyone focused on one idea, creates unity. The excitement and emotions are stirred up more in a setting where people are physically present with others. It is these types of interactions that foster emotional energy.
ReplyDeleteIdeas such as Facebook and Twitter are based upon temporary, fleeting conversations. I mean that you do not sit physically with others, as Collins suggests is best. Instead, you might write on someone's wall or comment on a picture. You do not get emotionally involved (at least not as much as you would face to face) because often times it takes time for the other person to realize you commented or said something and to respond back. For this reason, the chance for emotional energy to really be formed, is not as prevalent as it is when you are physically with other people.
In response to this question, I do think that there is a strong correlation between the ideas of Collins and the reasons for the popularity of Facebook. A driving force behind this section of reading was the idea of rituals. According to Ling, “the function of ritual is to strengthen and support group solidarity” (pp. 43). This notion is one in which helps to explain why Facebook has become so popular in our society. In addition, I feel that social cohesion is a primary driving force in the creation of technologies like Facebook and Twitter.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own experience, I have many personal examples of how Facebook can be considered an outlet for “group solidarity”. The strongest of these examples is probably my experience in trying to remain close with my friends from back home. Having a technology like Facebook has allowed us to keep in touch through a very simple outlet. Rather than having to send a letter or place a phone call, we can easily communicate back and forth through Facebook. Although I cannot thoroughly say that our relationship is stronger as a result of Facebook, I can say that our ability to communicated back and forth several times a week has allowed us to remain close.
I consider the central motivation of Facebook to be a visual representation of an individual’s community. In that way, it can be said that people seek to use this technology as a way to add to their own sense of social cohesion. Not only is an individual creating a profile of their own information and interests, but they are creating a place to view their friends and interactions.
Collins also says that these ritual chains create solidarity and generate symbols of group membership. I feel that the examples of Facebook and Twitter that you included are perfect for this concept. Facebook basically organizes people into groups. I personally believe that people all want to be a part of some group whether it be some club or organization. I also feel that facebook offers an opportunity for individuals to feel like they are a part of something. It offers a really easy method for people to stay in contact with one another and also to communicate easily with people who you might not have as frequent an opportunity to connect with.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that facebook and other online communication devices allow people to breach some forms of privacy and sneak a little look into one another lives. The pictures and various other activities that are public in this medium might not be available to be seen in any other place. People tend to drift from various social circles throughout their lives and build and break away from many relationships. Facebook offers a way for people to maintain some form of a connection with people whom they would otherwise have probably fallen out of contact with.
I completely agree with the fact that facebook and twitter are a form of an interaction ritual that creates solidarity and generates symbols of group membership. I also completely agree with the fact that Collins says how these interaction rituals produce emotional energy which is a central motivating force for individuals. However, what I do not agree with in regards to facebook and twitter and its comparison to Collins definition of interaction rituals is that Collins talks about how interaction rituals that produce the most emotional energy are the ones that bolster institutional stability. "The world is run by Facebook" is a common phrase we here today so there is no doubt that it is creating the most emotional energy, but I am not so sure that it bolster's institutional stability. Rather, I feel that it brings about more chaos than stability. With the world focused more on facebook than their paper they need to write or their work they need to be getting done, it creates anything but stability.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions, I believe what Collins say is correlated with the new phenomenon of Facebook and Twitter, although not directly. I feel that people use these sources to stay connected with others, and to have a sense of feeling involved in others lives. It gives users the opportunity to stay connected with people they might not otherwise have been able to. However I feel what Collins is saying can be directed towards social networking, but because users can’t be directly emotional with the person they are contacting or share face to face interaction, it skews the concept slightly. If we were looking at technology only, then yes, his concept would fit. Although if you continue to read on in the chapter he goes on to explain that the interaction ritual entails. He states, “The interaction ritual includes the following elements: two or more physically assembled, boundaries to outsides, a common focus of attention… sharing a common mood.” (pg74) All of these elements cannot be correlated with social networking. Sites such as Facebook, are similar to the fact that members are often involved in groups or “like” different sites, helping to share the same interests and ideas, but not mood. With all of that being said, it brings it back to the idea that we can’t base Collins beliefs as directly correlated for the new social networking phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions posted by Evan, I think what Collins says is a main reason why Facebook and Twitter are so popular in today's society. I believe the main reason that people turn to these two websites is because they enjoy staying connected to their friends that go to other schools and it can be easier than using the cell phone all the time. What I don't really agree with, howevev, is that these social networks create some type of emotional energy that "bolsters institutional stability." With social networks, people don't really get emotionally attached to each other like they would with the more face to face physical interactions with each other. With that said though, these sites do provide some ways that agree with Collins' take on interaction rituals. Users are allowed to join different groups that their friends are a part of, which also helps link them to others who enjoy similar things. Given that, I think there is some relation between these social networks and Collins' thoughts, but it isn't the main reason that these websites have become so popular over the years.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to this important question I think the best answer comes from John Locke (If I recall correctly). While this was not one of our assigned readings for this week, I think that the quote "Man is a social animal" is important to consider when undertaking this question. I think that many of the most popular new technologies are social devices like cell phones, facebook, ect. because we are indeed social animals who need contact with other individuals. Communication has long been one of the most important things to consider when evaluating history and historical societies/cultures, because communication is the key to technological growth. Think about this: Without technologies like radio during WWII and subsequent wars, armies would be at a huge disadvantage because they could not relay troop movements. The fact that new communication technologies allow greater social interaction only fosters the foregone conclusion that humans need to have contact with other humans.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that interaction rituals can produce emotional energy through many social outlets, which include Facebook and Twitter, I believe that the most effective interaction rituals (those that bolster institutional stability) are those that occur in person. The use of body language helps to convey a lot of one’s message, also helping to eliminate any confusion and potential loss of stability that may arise due to misinterpretations of written messages.
ReplyDeleteThe development of newer social outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and Skype are very possibly due to our instinctive desire for emotional energy. As previously mentioned, although these sources of social interaction may not be the most effective, they do provide a larger quantity of interactions. In other words, quantity takes precedence over quality when interaction rituals do not require in-person communication.