Webupon

Communication is a term that is conceptualized in a variety of ways. The two primary categories of communication have historically been reciprocal communication such as dialogue, and dissemination, which encompasses a broad range of media including writing, radio and television. Bakhtin describes dialogue as something that “provokes an answer, anticipates it and structures itself in the answer’s direction” (Bakhtin, 1981, 280). Reciprocal communication is always a back and forth and dissemination is always one sided, seemingly making them opposites. However, with new technology there are many cases where it is difficult to distinguish which category communication falls under. In some cases, such as with Facebook, there is no one correct category because the medium blurs the boundaries between categories. Facebook is a social networking site that began with university students but has become popular with the general public. Matthew J. Hodge reported Facebook to be the “seventh most visited Web site on the Internet” (Hodge 2008). This large number of users means that communication on Facebook is mass communication, with the potential for a multitude of people to view each post. Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini claim that communication is the main motivation for users to access Facebook. (Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini 2007, 1). Changes in youth culture have inspired people to communicate in new ways through the web 2.0 format of Facebook. Web 2.0 is an interactive web site format that allow viewers to become authors of content on the site. Facebook combines different conceptions of communication by disseminating dialogue.

Many elements of Facebook are pure dissemination. Writing a “Note” on Facebook is broadcasting a text. Depending on the users privacy settings a Note can either be available for everyone on Facebook to read, it can be limited to the users’ network or it can only be visible to those classified as “friends” of the user. In either case numerous people can and most likely will view the note that is not specifically intended towards them. When a user writes a new Note the button they click to complete it is labelled “publish”, because that is essentially what is being done. No matter the content or quality of the written material it is being published and much like a published book, it is made available to read. Readers will not have direct contact with the author of the note while they read. Many other elements on a Facebook profile are information broadcasted by the user about him or herself, undeniably dissemination. The status, which announces where or in what state of mind a person is, is not directed at any other user in particular and can be viewed by many people. The personal information that comprises the majority of the profile, listing age, religious views, political views, employment, education and entertainment preferences is not interactive and does not offer an explanation behind selections. Hodge (2008) compares the sharing of information on Facebook to bulletin boards and yearbooks. The information is provided to the masses and left to be accepted and interpreted.

Reciprocal communication is also present in Facebook. There are instant messenger applications that can be added to Facebook that function much like MSN instant messenger. Instant messaging is dialogue, despite the fact that people talking on it are not in the same room. It can be enhanced with webcams and microphones to provide video and or audio. Hearing and seeing the other person allows for a back and forth that responds to tone and body language just as talking in person does. Even without the webcam or microphone instant messaging is a reciprocal form of communication. Messages sent are intended for a specific audience who know who the sender is. The receiver interprets the message and is able to respond with a message of their own or ask for clarification on the previous message. The instantaneousness and dual participation of instant messaging makes it unquestionably reciprocal communication. It is arguable that the Message system of Facebook, that is essentially e-mail, is also a form of dialogue or reciprocal communication. It too is a system of direct messages between two individuals who send and receive replies to and from one another. With an intended audience the message is directed at the specific individual and encourages a response. When an individual clicks “reply” rather than creating a whole new message the previous contact between the individuals is listed for reference, preventing misunderstandings in case the response is not instantaneous. Private conversations are held through this messaging system, the key word being conversations.

Public conversations are held on the “Wall”. Each person’s profile, and each network or group’s page has a wall that encourages a new form of communication. In a sense it is a dialogue, where people respond to one another, often two individuals writing on each other’s walls in turns but also occasionally multiple people responding to an issue written on the same wall. Socrates states that dialogue is “non-reproducible” (Peters 1999, 35) but this is not true on Facebook where advanced versions of the Wall allow posts received to be forwarded. It is somewhat reciprocal because there are responses back and forth, with an intended audience that is encouraged to respond to the individual who posted. However, the wall is also dissemination. The conversations held on the walls of Facebook are broadcasted, available for all the friends of the participants to see, and in an open profile or group any Facebook user can read the dialogue. These supposedly unintended viewers interpret the conversations they read much like they might watch a dialogue on a television program or read about two people interacting in a book. Socrates feared many people reading messages intended only for a few people (Peters 1999, 37) and would oppose Facebook on the grounds that many of the messages posted on Walls are private and should not be in a public space. Hodge writes, “there is no intention on the part of the user, or assurance inherent in the communication that only the recipient will be able to view the information presented” (Hodge 2008). The dialogue, as Hodge is noting, is not private. Dialogue becomes dissemination when it is posted for all to see and remains there after the words are read by the receiver, left as a public record of personal interaction.

Similar to the complex communication of the wall is the Comments feature of Facebook. Comments can be made about any note, photograph or posted item on Facebook. These items form miniature versions of the wall that have guided discussions. Notes themselves are dissemination, but by providing the Comment feature Facebook encourages users to interact with dissemination, posting public responses to what they view and interpret. A Comment can be several forms of communication depending on the context and the content. A Comment is dissemination in that the user who posts it is broadcasting their perspective of the note or photograph to everyone who views it. Dialogues sometimes start when a note is interesting or a photograph reminds people of a shared experience. There is a back and forth discussion that can be between two or many people. Questions posed in the Comment section, asking for clarification about what is said or displayed in the item above, invite reciprocal communication. In most dissemination there is no interaction between the senders and receivers, but dialogue is more reciprocal than posting comments. Peters describes the dialogue idealized by Socrates as “sender oriented” and the dissemination idealized by Jesus as “receiver oriented” (1999, 35). Comments on Facebook as a combination of dissemination and dialogue are both receiver and sender oriented. The posting of Comments on Notes and photographs on Facebook is ambiguous as to what category of communication it participates in.

The reasoning behind the Wall and the public comments has to do with social identity. Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini include “presenting an idealized persona” (2007, p1) on their list of the main activities of Facebook. Social identity is the role an individual has within the social sphere of his or her peers. It can be an identity in relation to other students, to coworkers, or to people within a geographical community. The circle of friends an individual surrounds him or herself with is central to their positioning within the social hierarchy of popularity among teens and young adults. Friendship is established and maintained with communication. By broadcasting communication with others through the Walls of Facebook, displaying the ability to communicate with others, Facebook users are broadcasting their social identity. Popularity is easily measured on Facebook, by the Friends list visible on the profile that gives the number of “friends” an individual has on Facebook, but more importantly by the communication visible in their profile. Harwood (2006) wrote that “communication is influenced by group identities” (88), this is observed on Facebook, as individuals communicate with those within their groups of friends and in the Facebook Groups that are created out of shared interests. Harwood (2006) also noted that “communication shapes identities” (88) and this can be noted by the fact that Facebook users display the Groups they belong to in their profile, using them as symbols of aspects of their personal identities.

Wittel (2001) argues that networking is less about identity and belonging and more about integration and common interests (51). Networking is a concept that Facebook is built on. Wittel focuses on the social aspects of making business contacts, something Facebook can assist young professionals in accomplishing quickly. As a social network, Facebook connects people within existing networks but also allows users to scroll through the friends lists of their friends and the friends of those they share a network with. Facebook allows networking to work as either dissemination or dialogue and the two are often combined. For example, a young woman has just graduated from law school and is looking for a firm to join. Her friend works as a receptionist in one firm and has several lawyers on her friends list on Facebook. She can mention the young woman and the lawyers can review her profile on Facebook discretely by linking through the receptionist’s friend list to see if she is someone they would like to consider. In this case the young woman’s profile is a form of dissemination, whether it portrays her as professional or not is up to the lawyers to interpret and she cannot defend herself by explaining circumstances. Contrarily and more likely, the young woman will look at the lawyers information through the link provided by her friend the receptionist and seeing what great connections her friend has will suggest that the friend invite one or more of these contacts to a social function they are attending together so they can meet. Once they have met in person and she has made an impression she can add these contacts on Facebook legitimately, and create a dialogue by sending messages and posting on Walls. This allows for a casual connection that has used both dissemination and dialogue on Facebook in order to expand networks. While business networking has potential on Facebook, it is more common that social networking such as dating is conducted through the site.

The dissemination as an individual posts a photograph of himself or herself on the Hot or Not application of Facebook is intended to stimulate response. The image is rated anonymously on a scale of one to ten based on sexual appeal by strangers on Facebook. This is an example of Facebook users disseminating in order to receive approval and reassurance of their position within the dating world of teens or young adults. Few individuals with the Hot or Not application chose to meet those interested in them, and since the ratings are anonymous unless the rating individual clicks otherwise Facebook acknowledges this. The majority of users only have the application in order to be reassured that they do provoke interest. That the act of dissemination is performed to obtain a response demonstrates that it is not pure dissemination. Dissemination is sent out to the masses to be received or not, with the hope of providing a message to some but with no expectation of reciprocation. The Hot or Not feature can therefore not be dissemination, because it does expect a response to the image. In this way Facebook challenges any firm conception of communication. The Hot or Not feature is representative of Facebook as a whole, for the compilation of the profile is dissemination that encourages response, which is a characteristic of dialogue. Peters writes, “Distortions of dialogue make it possible to communicate across culture and across space and time” (1999, 34). Facebook is one such distortion of dialogue, a medium that reduces face-to-face interaction but allows for long distance communication that is preserved and the potential to interact with people from other cultures. Peters views these distortions of dialogue as a positive change and commends hybrids of dialogue and dissemination.

Facebook is ultimately a hybrid form of communication. The dialogue of the private messaging and the dissemination of the Notes and Status updates merge in the Wall and Comments in a dissemination of dialogue. Peters (1999) argues that these seemingly opposite sides of communication are rarely actually opposites, as most real communication falls somewhere in between. Facebook demonstrates this point clearly, and has become an extremely popular medium of communication because it has the benefits of both reciprocal and disseminating communication. A better understanding of the types of communication used on Facebook will assist with the social debates about privacy issues and whether or not the police or schools should be able to punish people for what they say on Facebook.