Virtual socialization: does it create social capital?
Canada wins the prize among countries “addicted” to the popular socialization site Facebook, with one citizen in four making “friends” there, a new way of bringing the population together in this vast country fond of new technologies. “Canadians have a greater affinity (than others) with Facebook,” said Greg Elmer, director of the research laboratory on the cultural impact of information technologies (infoscape lab) at Ryerson University in Toronto. Born in early 2004 in the United States, Facebook is the second most popular socializing site in the world, behind its rival MySpace which has more than 100 million members. “Facebook is about finding your friends while a site like MySpace is about presenting yourself to others (…) Online communication and socialization seem more Canadian to me than the self-promotion that young Americans are taught to do “, he explains to AFP. The Canadian metropolis Toronto boasted in May of being the world capital of Facebook in terms of absolute number of users, a title since lost to London. But the British capital has twice the population of Toronto. The popularity of Facebook in Toronto is explained by the presence of universities, its extensive geography (going from the suburbs to the city center can take hours), its financial culture (first financial center in Canada) and its ethnic diversity, summarizes Mr. Elmer. According to Canadian census data, nearly half of the Toronto region’s five million residents are “immigrants.” And many of them use socializing sites to maintain contact abroad or develop it locally, researchers estimate. (…) If several government employees in Canada are refused access to Facebook, politicians are increasing their friendships there. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has 6,800 supporters, surpassed by the leaders of the opposition, the Liberal Stéphane Dion (10,500), and the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton (8,600). Several commentators and experts question the notion of “friendship” conveyed by Facebook, a generic term describing each relationship from one individual to another which would erase the different types of relationships (family, work, acquaintances, etc.) and would truncate the deep meaning of friendship. “If Facebook is the main tool your friends use to communicate with each other and you are not a member, you may be socially excluded,” notes Phillip Jeffrey, a student at the University of British Columbia (West) who plans to write your doctoral thesis on this socialization site. (RTL Info, 12/27/2007).
Thanks to Greg Elmer for his interesting comments. It is correct that MySPace offers self-promotion of an individualistic nature, while Facebook, Hi5 and others offer virtual socialization in order to compensate for the lack of social connections. The causes of the deficit in social ties in Ontario are indicated by the article: excessive size of conurbations and mass immigration which lead to extreme uprooting and diversity.
It is also true that the notion of “friendship” put forward by these sites is dubious. A “friend” is someone who agrees to see you included in their list, and vice versa. This does not necessarily imply real mutual knowledge or intimacy, even less solidarity. As for the virtual “friends” of politicians, they are names in a list, perhaps a political clientele seeking the gaze of the famous man, in any case a target for political marketing. Basically, these bonds of so-called friendship are reduced to the existence of a public image. An image that can be more or less tampered with, which is contrary to all the principles of producing sustainable social capital. Thus, research carried out by us showed that 78% of people using a socialization site or network altered at least one essential element of their social identity. In the case of young people and adolescents, there is more frequently an existing community that uses the virtual tool to stay in touch, extend contacts after school, exchange ritual objects that cement the bond (videos, photos, etc. .). This is undoubtedly the ideal use of the tool, consisting of strengthening already existing networks. But Phillip Jeffrey points out the risk inherent in intensive use: the community connection can be confiscated by the tool, to the point that not using it can lead to you being socially excluded!
In all cases, let us express our skepticism as to the capacity of these “solutions” to generate lasting and real social bonds, by replacing the natural opportunities of work, neighborhood, family or evenings. The fact is that these natural vectors are no longer effective, and this is what we need to question. To make them effective again, profound changes would be required. Other policies of social cohesion, town planning, municipal participation, ethnic identity. An in-depth review of current values – individualist, consumerist and hedonist. Other places or revived meeting places. Clearer codes of communication and social behavior that are better known to everyone. A relearning of the look, of the smile, of civility. Multiple orientations could help restore our society’s capacity for integration. The debate is undoubtedly only beginning… generally speaking, virtual socialization is not negative, can even be very positive, but, made necessary by the dysfunction of society, it can paradoxically only function correctly if society functions still quite correctly: trust, truthfulness, sense of commitment, ability to accept reality, conviviality, sincere desire to create a bond are necessary to move smoothly from virtual to real.
