Neo-tribalism: A Maffesolian approach to Facebook

According to the Guardian Facebook has now 500 million users. "That makes it not only the biggest social network in the world, but also the fastest growing, able to create its own virtual currency ("Facebook credits") as it heads towards its first billion users [...]." (The Guardian, Facebook reaches 500 million users, 2010). Further The Guardian quotes  Gartner analyst Monica Basso for saying that by "[...] 2012, Facebook will become the hub for integration of social networks, as well as for social extensions of traditional websites and applications [...].".

However...

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="AJC1, Flickr"][/caption]

While Basso's prediction might be true, she misses an important point. While we might see an integration of social networks, it will only be those networks that people have an interest in. In other words the Facebookan (as we can call people of Facebook) will not be challenged but rather confirmed. To take an example. I have an interest in open source operating systems (Linux) as well as football (Manchester United). News from Facebook will fluctuate around these two topics. Information regarding say Windows or Liverpool will be scewed in favour biased in favour of the former rather than the latter. This makes sense since I have no interest in what is going on in the Windows or Liverpool world. While Manchester United and operating systems are not of grave importance for democracies, the debate regarding the core of politics is. This debate fluctuates around distribution of funds according to the Danish thinker Erik Rasmussen (in Danish).

Why is this so?

To fully understand why people turn to "like-minded" rather than people they disagree with, a quick look into sociology might provide useful insight.

"In short, we only exist because the other, my close relation, or the Other, the social, gives me my existence. I am as I am because the other recognizes me as such. Such an assertion might seem shocking, but is this not, empirically, how, from the smallest to the largest, societies function. Such an ‘effect of structure’ is well described by Marie Douglas, in her book How Institutions Think, (Douglas 1992, p. 12). It enables us to understand that whoever does not submit to such recognition is rejected, stigmatized, or marginalized. Their exclusion is due to the fact that they don’t have ‘the smell of the clan,’ or don’t want to acquire it." (Maffesoli, 2001: 2344).

What Maffesoli really says is that we exist, because we are confirmed by other people. The confirmation is a key assumption of his. However, it does make sense. Imagine that you are not confirmed but instead stigmatised and / or marginalised. This is why I would never feel home among Liverpool fans or Windows users. They would stigmatise me since "I do not smell like them" assuming a particular Liverpool smell.

And the consequence

A fruitful debate is among people that do not agree. Hopefully and under ideal circumstances if both debaters have good arguments, they would reach a middleground. However if they never meet, they will not be able to achieve this middleground. Rather they would be able to be suspicious against the other part they never meet. This can be seen among majority and minority ethnic groups. In other words it (can) lead(s) to tensions as well as conflicts regarding the distribution of funds. Back to Facebook. Congratulations with your half a billion users. However, this does not lend credence to better social contacts among different groups with different opinions. Rather it will just provide an approving platform for users.