In a recent article from The New Atlantis, Christine Rosen writes extensively about social-networking sites and paints a fairly stark picture. With section titles such as "The New Taxonomy of Friendship" and "Status-Seekers," Rosen paints a picture of social interaction morphing into a giant Pokemon mentality of gotta-catch-em-all status battles where "friends" are publically paraded around (pitted against each other), then tucked away and occasionally petted (or superpoked) while we collect some more (Pokemon metaphor mine, but I think an effective one). Here are my two "favorite" quotes:

"In investing so much energy into improving how we present ourselves online, are we missing chances to genuinely improve ourselves?"

"[The popularity of social networking sites] shows a desire to avoid the vulnerability and uncertainty that true friendship entails. Real intimacy requires risk—the risk of disapproval, of heartache, of being thought a fool. Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen."

First, I’m fascinated by the odd choice implied in the first quote. So we either "present" ourselves online or we "improve" ourselves (supposedly in the "real" world)? I fail to see how those are connected; I fail to see why it has to be an either/or choice. Even if we agree with the premises (which I don’t) why can’t someone work on accomplishing both? There’s also an implication that presenting ourselves online can not be a method of improving ourselves (note the further implication that social-networking should intrinsically involve self-improvement in the first place). But I do think the presentation of our online selves can be done in the name of self-improvement– it just might not be the self that Rosen seems to think "genuinely" matters. What seems at stake here is the continuing debate about identity itself– between people who see identity as fluid playful fracturedness and those who seek a cohesive structured enlightenment-style form. I’m obviously in the "playful" camp; and subsequently, see our online selves as valid and genuine expressions of who we are, who we think we are, or who we’d like to be. Be it our representations on Facebook or Myspace, our avatar in Second Life, or our words on a blog, I find it silly to think that such identity representation/presentation is not "genuine" or constructive to our meat space selves (equally fractured, btw). Why this hair-triggered reaction to think that constructing online (digital) versions of ourselves has to be counterproductive to our fleshy selves instead of viewed as an expansion, rearticulation, or playful (productive) fantasy?

Moving to the second quote, I’m bothered by Rosen’s willingness to offer a definition of friendship that is "true" and "real." Although, I’m not surprised by her willingness considering it makes perfect sense with her seemingly modernist notion of identity. Who are we to define what friendship should be, or what functions it should serve, for anyone else? Especially when (and I agree with Rosen on this) the concept of friendship is changing as we progress further and further into a digital age. Let’s remove the word "real" and ask if intimacy involves "risk," rather of heartache or disapproval? Yeah, I can get onboard with that. But does such a risk not occur on social-networking sites; is such risk not applicable to our virtual selves? Of course it does. As controversial as this example could prove, take the recent suicide of a fourteen-year old girl who was mocked and harassed on Myspace (later to find out that the source of the insults was an adult parent of one of the girl’s friends). Obviously, this is a horrible and tragic tale, and it also highlights some of the challenges our society faces in an online and networked world. However, the tale also highlights the very raw and real emotions and communication currently occurring on social-networking sites. In fact, I would argue that the less seriously we take the friendships and communication on social-networking sites, the more likely the possibility of seeing more tragic tales like this one.

Despite my quibbles, this article is still worth a read, and I also do agree with many of Rosen’s points. More importantly, I think we need more intelligent people offering diverse points of view on what these sites mean to the changing notions of friendship, interaction, and identity. Rosen ultimately offers a number of valid points; however, the dialogue needs to be tempered with the positive aspects of social-networking sites and what it means that so many millions of people have so quickly integrated them into their lives