Social networks are creating a paradox of loneliness in society., While the founders of these networks often proclaims they are egalitarianism, research shows they replicate the cultural biases and taxonomies of social groups that exist in the real world. The implications of loneliness have more to do with the focus on how to grow social networks to be truly inclusive, not gated communities of those with similar interest and those also wanted to portray their lives as perfect.
Social Media and Loneliness
The Paradox of Social Networking: Isolated in a Sea of Connections
With the proliferation of social networking sites globally and the continual pace of innovation on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and a myriad of other sites, it is common for people to belong to five or more of these sites. In addition, the number of acquaintances listed on Facebook may number in the hundreds, possibly even the thousands. On LinkedIn it is common to find professionals with over 600 professional contacts yet without any recommendations or sign of interaction whatsoever (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). On Twitter it is common to find people with tens of thousands followers yet not actual, meaningful interchange. Social networks reward members for racking up significant numbers of followers while minimizing the value of interactions (Glorieux, 1993). Gamification in the form of badges and other sources of recognition reward loyalty to the site first, and to friends and acquaintances at a much lower priority. This is the paradox of social networks; they provide a very stable platform for communication and collaboration, including real-time sharing of status updates, yet they reward popularity and the focus on self-promotion first (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). The intent of this analysis is to evaluate how the paradox of social networks leads to greater isolation over inclusive, collaborative behaviors as many social networks ironically were designed to achieve (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 2006). This paradox becomes especially visible in the context of professional workplaces where social network structures reflect actual organizational hierarchies (Bennett, Owers, Pitt, Tucker, 2010).
Exploring the Paradox of Social Networks
The meteoric rise of Facebook can be attributed to the loneliness and isolation college students feel when they away from family and friends, in addition to the social isolation of not being included in the most active or desirable groups on a campus. The irony of social networks is that while they were designed to provide for inclusive frameworks to unite a social fabric of an organization or school, in fact they often lead to a Balkanization of social groups, a splintering of interest and status hierarchies over time (Wellman, 2008).
The paradox of extended social networks is their power to reinforce the taxonomies of a given social and cultural series of norms and values over time. This stratification of a group is enforced and strengthened through social networks more than assuaged or broken down (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 2006). The social taxonomy of a given organization therefore can lead to a more exclusionary and limited online membership (Glorieux, 1993). From the very first socialization experiences people have, they develop an innate sense of being included or excluded in a group (Wellman, 2008). Social networks are often used for these exclusion-based approaches to defining the overall hierarchy and open vs. closed groups within a broader organizational structure or hierarchy (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). This is one of the primary approaches used to define relative social status and the relative importance or focus of one given group over another. These combination of factors are amplified with social networks are define the overall sociocultural fabric of an organization, whether than entity is a business, school college or university (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012).
Contrary to the highly egalitarian and democratic claims that many of the founders of social networks proclaim, nothing could be further from the truth. There is egalitarianism in a given group or replicated taxonomy of a given organization, and the implied rules of egalitarianism in the group are transferred to the online group via the social network platform (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). Those new to an organization and on the periphery of the social taxonomy, as is the case with so many students who arrive at a new school, must earn their way into the broader taxonomy or social fabric by showing respect and loyalty to norms and values (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 2006). This is one of the primary factors that lead to such a strong level of social isolation on the part of many students who just enter a new school or seek to gain greater friends or influence in a larger social context. They are often ostracized and ignored as they have not earned the right to be heard in the larger group (Wellman, 2008). This is how the paradox of social networking begins and is accelerated by the lack of clarity of specific roles throughout a social group or organization.
When a new member is admitted to a social network there is the implied trust they will abide by the norms, values and broader construct of acceptable and desirable behavior (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). Social networks segment themselves by these levels of trust, the variations in norms, values and broader constructs as well (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). For example when a student enters a new high school there is the immediate classification of where they are in the social taxonomy based on the appearance, interests, innate strengths and weaknesses, and often their socioeconomic strata as well. While these parameters can often be challenged and even refuted through communication and self-confidence, they also are constraints that relegate a person to a given place in the cultural and social fabric of the school. These are the factors that either define the specific freedoms they have to associate with others or restrict their connecting with and collaborating with other groups (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 2006). In this sense social networks do lead to greater isolation as there isn't nearly the level of egalitarianism and continual mobility as promised by the founders of social media sites. There is also nowhere near the social mobility that social media pundits and theorists praise these new platforms for; if anything social networks tend to be a fairly accurate representation of the social influence from an intertrust-based standpoint (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 2006). The greater the risk of self-disclosure of items not aligned with a person's ideal self, the more filtering and exclusion of people known in real life (Koch, Gonzalez, Leidner, 2012). In other words people will willingly not connect with those they know if there is the threat they will disclose too much personal information over time to other people online.
You’re 77% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.