In rural parts of the globe, the livelihoods many of depend on a simple tool which has existed for thousands of years: the fishing net. Similar to the word, “woodwork,” from the creation of this device, we derived the word “network.” As technology progressed, and innovators began conducting electricity through wire, the image of netting or network became a natural metaphor to describe such processes. Today, it is accepted almost universally as an apt term to describe websites such as MySpace and Facebook.
When I began considering the articles by Boyd, Ellison, and Beer, this image was the first thing that came to mind. As a former highschool debater, I tend to pay especially close attention to definitions. After reading their arguments concerning “network” and “networking,” I land somewhere in the middle. Boyd and Ellison offer an interesting argument for distinguishing “network” from “networking.” While it their assertion that networking implies building connections betweens strangers rings true, their conclusion that “networking” is largely absent from social networks does not. In today’s world, a great many number of individuals use large and growing social networks like Twitter and LinkedIn to reach out to people they have no previous contact with for the purpose of creating professional connections. They use such sites to hear about the newest innovations in their fields, or even to find new employment. There are numerous cases of people finding jobs via Twitter.
One natural response to this comes in the form of a question. “So, how many people are really finding jobs and connecting with their professional peers via Twitter, LinkedIn, et cetera?” This is where I begin to resonate with Beer’s thoughts on the work of Ellison and Boyd. He writes, “My argument… is simply that we should be moving toward more differentiated classifications of the new online cultures not away from them.” My way of doing this would be to begin creating these classifications by acknowledging the differentiation between network and networking, but also to acknowledge that both are legitimate and salient phenomena. How such a theory might break down practically—which sites fall into which category —is another story. But, that’s the point of a class like this. It forces us begin considering about how we are going to begin thinking about these new tools we have created.
Your post, as well as Susan’s post, really have my head spinning! It seems to me that the biggest challenge to defining SNSes is the fact that so many elements are shared between all of them. I agree with you that a system of classification would help differentiate SNSes. However, how do you decide what classification fits which site? Many people utilize Instagram, Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter to achieve the same goal. For example, I have a friend who is a make-up artist, so she posts pictures to the various sites, price lists, services she offers, obviously on Linkedin she posts more professional info, etc. She is networking with those in and out of her personal network. On Instagram, she’s been able to meet people who she never would have met in real life, while on Facebook many of her new clients are gained through latent relationships she already had. (friend of a friend’s cousin’s sister want her to do wedding make-up or something like that.) She is using four different SNSes to achieve one main goal, even thought all four sites offer different tools to achieve this. So how do we ever figure out how to appropriately classify them? Too much! Great post, Jacob! Very thought provoking.