"The Internet Thrives on Humiliation"

I don't want to lose track of my favorite sentence in a recent New York Times article about the Crying Jordan meme: "The internet thrives on humiliation." The follow-up sentence is good too: "Twitter is always raring for a public shaming."  It's a good analysis of a popular meme that I might share with my Intro to Sociology classes in the fall. Students liked a class session last year when we talked about Drake's Hotline Bling meme.

TODD talk about Twitter

So this is me talking about Twitter.

Why Do You Unfollow?

In a stunning display of self-indulgence, I am posting some of my own tweets!

Unfollowing is an interesting subject. What are some reasons you unfollow people?
— Todd Schoepflin (@CreateSociology) February 28, 2014

Because they unfollowed you? Their content? Too positive? Too negative? Do they tweet too much? How do you define too much?
— Todd Schoepflin (@CreateSociology) February 28, 2014

If you unfollow me, please satisfy my curiosity and let me know why. “Schoepflin, you didn’t bring enough to the social media table.”
— Todd Schoepflin (@CreateSociology) February 28, 2014

This is not a social media table. pic.twitter.com/z9QNB2Dxc8
— Todd Schoepflin (@CreateSociology) February 28, 2014

Thoughts On Academic Twitter

It's 3:55 as I begin writing. This is not usually when I write. Six-year-old was up for a minute at 3:00. He thought it was 6:00 and time to get up. Three-year-old was up for a minute at 3:30. He needed a blanket adjustment. I couldn't fall back to sleep. I've been meaning to put together some thoughts about Twitter. I suppose this presents an opportunity.

One question I have for academics on Twitter: how long do you see yourself tweeting? Do you picture yourself tweeting in three years? In five? Some other program might come along and knock Twitter out before then anyway. But supposing Twitter sticks around, will you?

When many of us went to graduate school, social media wasn't part of the equation. We were on a track to teach and do research. It wasn't "you will teach, research, and tweet." But we found ourselves tweeting, even though it's not required. Some of the folks I follow have strong Twitter game day after day. I find myself with less to say these days. There are times when I consider weighing in on something and then the thought occurs that "the world doesn't need my opinion on this." Maybe because I've been blogging and tweeting for a long time, I've had ample opportunity to express myself.

But Twitter offers more than self-expression. Twitter provides a sense of community. Twitter is a place for activists to gather and work. Twitter gives people voice. It's a place to share and compare experiences in academia. Twitter is a way to share ideas and resources about teaching. Twitter is a platform to communicate ideas as one does research. There are lots of reasons that people take to Twitter. It doesn't have to be just one. But I wonder what keeps you there?

I've interviewed some people about Twitter. Through e-mail, I've conducted interviews with academics on Twitter. There are many things they like about Twitter, the kinds of things I mention in the previous paragraph. One thing some academics don't care for is self-promotion. They seem turned off by self-promotion. I feel like I've done my share of self-promotion on Twitter. I share my work quite a bit on Twitter. I try not to overdo it, whatever that means. All of this is subjective. Maybe we need a Twitter referee to throw a flag once in a while: "Too much self-promotion!" It's hard to figure out. I'm pretty loose about self-promotion. I'm one to think, "we want to get our ideas out there, so Twitter is a place to do it." What do you think about self-promotion? Do you get annoyed by it? Do you play a part in it?

One academic recently posed a question about Twitter to me: "What's the point of all this?" What this person had in mind is how often we tweet with no response. Many of our tweets are not greeted with favorites and retweets. So what are we doing out here on these Twitter streets? Just tweeting into the world, just because? Does it matter if only a few people are paying attention to our tweets? What do you think?

I'm interested in what it's like for people who have a few thousand followers or more and get a lot of favorites and retweets. I wonder if it puts pressure on them. For me, I tweet with a record of getting a favorite or retweet for one or two of every ten tweets. Approximately. What happens when all of a sudden you rack up the favorites and retweets? Does it change the way you tweet?

I've had some very enjoyable interactions with people on Twitter. I really like and learn from a lot of the people I follow on Twitter. Twitter has given me a ton of valuable information that I have put to use in my courses. There are things about Twitter that frustrate me, but I'll probably stick around for a while.

It's 4:32 now. I'm not sure this is coherent. But I'll proofread it a few times and then put some of these questions on Twitter. 4:58 a.m., time to post.

A Sociological Conversation About Twitter

Introduction (written by Todd Schoepflin). I’ve never met Matt Loveland in person. We follow each other on Twitter and correspond on e-mail occasionally. Recently, when I asked Matt for a few thoughts about Twitter in an e-mail, he responded by saying “Let’s do a paper.” So we’re cooking up a project about Twitter. For a short-term idea, I asked if he was interested in sharing his thoughts about Twitter in an interview conducted through e-mail. He agreed to do so, and this is the conversation that followed:

Todd Schoepflin: So, Matt, where are you at right now with Twitter? What excites you about Twitter? What frustrates you?

Matt Loveland: The most exciting thing about Twitter is that I see it connecting me with a community of scholars/journalists/activists that I wasn't even aware of until very recently, but I feel a part of. I think that I have something to contribute to what is happening there, and I find that very often I'm coming across ideas/resources that are helpful in my professional work. Also, I'm finding that it is actually rewarding work in and of itself. I see it as a place to be a public scholar, and this is particularly the case when it's connected to my blogging and the blogging of others. I'm working on getting others here at Le Moyne to see it this way, and really that's just part of a bigger movement in the academy to rethink the substance of academic work.

There are, of course, a number of frustrations. One is that some people really do seem to carry typical academic prejudices/pretensions onto Twitter. My opinion is that this is more common among the big names I find on Twitter, and so in this way it can look just like the academic hierarchies that we see in publishing, at conferences, etc. That's a shame because it seems to obliterate one of the potentially fantastic things about Twitter, that we can meet and learn from a wider range of people than if we are stuck in our brick and mortar schools. Someone, for example, with 3000 followers who only follows 100 clearly thinks differently about Twitter reciprocity than I do!

Also, it's plain old addictive. I'm on Twitter too much, and given that it's not yet a legitimate form of scholarly work, I do feel I need to be careful not to get too wrapped up to the detriment of the other work I do. Again, this is very much related to blogging (and really I see tweeting and blogging as different forms of the same 'public scholarly community' I'd like to be a part of). I can get a little obsessive about my follower count, worrying that if I tweet too much I might drive away followers, or even worse one of the followers I’ve enjoyed interacting with. So, it's an added stress in some ways. 

I was hoping it would be valuable for teaching, but so far it's been difficult to get very many students to see it that way. I've only used it that way for one semester, but already I'm thinking of pulling back on that front.

TS: I'm very interested in the hierarchy point. I think about this a lot. Along what lines do you think hierarchies are formed? Have you made any observations about "Twitter stratification"? (I'm probably trying too hard to coin a phrase). But it’s interesting to observe the Twitter hierarchy among academics. Do you have more thoughts on this subject? Do you think ego is a key factor here? I try not overdo the self-deprecation thing, but I do feel like a second-tier (or third-tier) sociologist on Twitter. How about you? In terms of the whole hierarchy matter, I'll pose a basic sociological question: What's going on here?

ML: Yes, I feel second tier, but I've had a chip on my shoulder my whole life, so it's hard to determine which comes first. It's interesting to think about whether the Twitter hierarchies are very different from other academic hierarchies. I'll have to think about that. Sort of related, I think you've got to be careful what you tweet about if you want to keep followers. A lot of people, I think, aren't crazy about tweets about teaching, but that's a prejudice that infects the whole discipline (publications in "Teaching Sociology" don't count as much on the job market, that kind of thing). My favorite tweeters are those at '2nd rate' places who tweet about the full range of what this job is, and also occasionally leave hints that they are real people (music, tv, sports, etc.). Using Twitter as a 'professional' seems to limit what one can do. In this way it's so much narrower than 'real life' interaction with professionals that can sort of maintain its main 'professional flow' over and against little digressions into being people. Here I guess I'm thinking like Weber or Ritzer, but clearly Goffman too. Maybe Twitter is the McDonaldization of the process of self. All this said, my follower count has gone steadily up, and I feel like I'm only a moderately disciplined tweeter, and I've interacted with people who are at much 'better' schools than me, with much 'better' academic score sheets.

TS: Interesting thought that "A lot of people, I think, aren't crazy about tweets about teaching." What leads you to say that? And can you expand your thought that "Maybe Twitter is the McDonaldization of the process of self." Please say more.

ML: I guess I think that people are using Twitter mostly to share news they think is important, and then to add a sociological comment if there is room. It's not that there are no tweets about teaching, but typically these are funny thoughts or complaints about students. I wouldn't say there is much there in terms of pedagogy. That said, most people probably share news or comments that might be helpful for people teaching, so maybe I'm making too clear a distinction between tweets about teaching and tweets that I see as 'doing sociology.'

When I say McDonaldization, I think what I mean to draw attention to is that followers are there for specific streams of content. I go to McDonalds if I want a hamburger, and I go to Taco Bell if I want a taco. Those are very rational/efficient ways to get food. If McDonald's gets too far afield from its core fare, then its consumers get confused, and probably displeased. You do burgers, McDonalds, not tacos! So, I think there is to some extent Weber's iron cage of rationalization because our behavior on Twitter is restricted by our followers (consumers) expectations. In copresent interaction, the audience constrains us too, of course, but the sanctioning is never as abrupt or as easily accomplished as the very simple, consumeristic Twitter 'unfollow.' No feed for you! Part of the unfollowing might just be that on Twitter, you are really just one feed among many, and if the feed gets boring or distracting, then you just cut it off. It's really not personal at all, and I've certainly unfollowed people myself. Here, maybe some C. Wright Mills could be useful.

Too cynical? 

TS: I don't think you're too cynical. We're sociologists--we're trained to be cynical! My own taste is that I like people who tweet with variety. I like when people surprise me with their tweets. So as a consumer of tweets, I like when people mix it up. I will say when my own tweets go off course I think to myself "people aren't interested in this." But that's part of the beauty of Twitter...self-expression. One last question: does it seem to you that informal rules exist with regard to unfollowing? If so, do you find yourself adhering to particular norms?

I actually prefer it when people’s tweets are sometimes riskier. All I mean by riskier here is less well formed thoughts. Some people really can get a lot of info in 140 characters, and I think that’s great. But, at the same time, I like watching people work things out in multiple tweets. Or even just sort of playing. I like that a lot, really.

As far as rules, I try not to tweet too far afield, too often. I’ll let an occasional sports or music tweet in, but I’ve got another account that’s pretty much only that. I try not to tweet ‘too much,’ but I don’t really know what that means. I tweet probably, on average, 10 times a day. But, I don’t want to actually measure that because it might be a lot more!

The End

A note from Matt and Todd: We plan to interview scholars who use Twitter as soon as we secure IRB approval. We want to pick brains to find out what other scholars think about Twitter. Our interview here just scratches the surface of sociological inquiry. If you are interested in being interviewed by phone or e-mail, please let us know. Matt can be reached at @mtloveland or lovelam@lemoyne.edu and Todd can be reached at @CreateSociology or tas@niagara.edu. So please tweet/DM or e-mail one of us if you’d like one of us to interview you for your insights about Twitter. 

Facebook Is Television

I'll just write, free form, without hyperlinks or images. I'm writing to write, to write out loud, and writing instead of watching TV or watching Twitter. I'll write for a while, until my 2-year-old wakes up from a nap. He might nap for an hour, or two, so that gives me time to write and wonder.

What comes to mind first? I guess I've been wanting to say something about Facebook. I want to say something about why I'm glad I didn't have Facebook in college, kind of a response to this piece by Nathan Jurgenson that I like. I know, I said no hyperlinks, but that's only one. Jurgenson makes a lot of good points in the post. It would be nice if we weren't so worried about our image, and if we weren't so scared of our "digital dirt" (a phrase he uses that I really like), but how can we not be afraid of our digital dirt? So many  people in this world are so quick to judge, to use information against you, to hold you accountable to the "worst" parts of your past. I guess I just wanted to briefly and simply say that people are judgmental. Jurgenson asks:

What if more people wore past identities more proudly? We could erode the norm of identity consistency, a norm no one lives up to anyways, and embrace change and growth for its own sake.

That's a really good question. And maybe he's right. And maybe people aren't as judgmental as I think. Sometimes we want to be judged by our best work, not by our more foolish and immature moments, and I think that's partly where the "Glad I didn't have Facebook in high school" (or college) statement comes from.

* * * * * * * *

Now comes the part when I refer to something I said in Introduction to Sociology last semester. I was talking with students about Facebook, and comparing Facebook with television, and then I blurted out "Facebook is television." I don't know if anybody has already said that, or written about it. Please alert me if someone has. I don't want to steal someone else's idea (or plagiarize). It's getting impossible to be original in this day and age. There are too many smart people writing smart things. Well, "Facebook is television" is a pretty simple thought anyway. Facebook, like television, is something that's on. Remember when Bruce Springsteen wrote "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)" Sugar, that's hyperlink number two. A blogger can't help himself. Anyway, the Springsteen song is from 1992. We were already complaining about all the crap that's on. Now it's three million channels and nothing is on. I think that's a reason people complain about Facebook: much of the time, there's nothing on. That's not to disrespect our friends and family members who post pictures of their kids or their dinner. But how many times does one want to see a rerun of somebody else's cute kid? How many times can you watch a rerun of How I Met Your Mother? (What's up with that show, I can't figure it out for the life of me. I've never made it through an episode, so I must be referring to people who watch it a lot).

Well, you get the point. There's a lot on. There's a lot to consume. Same for Twitter. Which is why I wonder if the term "backchannel" should just be "channel." The hashtag lets us check out what's going on behind the scenes (or, should I say, what's going on in the scene). It's surfing through Twitter and seeing what's on.

Okay, I haven't said anything about producing content. I recognize we are producers-consumers these days, but I tend to focus on consumption. A serious question: what does the research tell us about the ratio of consuming to producing? Is it accurate to say that most people consume way more than they produce? I'm inclined to think from the perspective of a consumer. Maybe it's because I consume a lot. Yes, I produce too, but not as much as I consume. Honestly, I need to study up on prosumption. Maybe I give too much attention to being a consumer.

In any case, thinking as a consumer, I think there's something to the notion that "Facebook is television." Facebook, Twitter, television, YouTube, Vine (first impression: Vine is pretty cool) give us a million of channels to watch (and gripe about). Forgive me for all the parentheses. I probably use too many when I write. And I know we're not always griping about what's on. We enjoy much of what we watch. What we watch makes us laugh and makes us feel a whole bunch of emotions. "A whole bunch of emotions" is a badly written phrase. It's a sign that I've been writing for 42 minutes without a break.

So I will take a quick break to grab a drink of water.

I'm back after a few minutes. I ended up exchanging a few text messages with my wife.

Well, I'm going to give this post one quick proofread and wrap it up. Mack might surprise me and wake up any moment. And by the time I come back to this post, I might just delete it or decide not to post it.

I did some proofreading and minor editing. I've been at this for an hour now. I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time, but the actual writing and editing took one hour. So know that it's not totally thought through. So why post it? Why not sit on it longer and make it better? Well, I told you, I just wanted to write out loud for a while.

E-Mail and Conversations

Sherry Turkle's opinion piece, "The Flight From Conversation," was published more than a month ago in The New York Times. Her main point is that nothing substitutes for face-to-face conversation. Alongside Twitter and Facebook, she mentions e-mail as a form of communication that pales in comparison to face-to-face conversation. She says that when we communicate using technology, we do so in a faster, less nuanced manner than when we converse in person. In face-to-face conversations, she says, we are more attentive to other people's viewpoints.

I've thought about her piece a lot since reading it last month. Today, it occurred to me that my best friendship has been sustained by e-mail. My best friend and I graduated from college in 1994. Since then, we have almost always lived 500 miles apart. We get together in person a few times a year. Between visits, we rely on e-mail to stay in touch. Neither of us like to use the phone. Never have. But we both like e-mail and have consistently used it in the course of our friendship. Sometimes the messages consist of frivolous one-liners and not-so-important updates. Other times they have included serious exchanges filled with deep meaning. There are things that are hard for me to say to anyone's face, for fear of being judged for what I have to say or how I say it. E-mail has allowed me to say what I want to say in a careful and measured way. Turkle sees this as a problem. Human relationships are messy and we use technology to clean them up, she says. To that I would say without e-mail, there are things I never would have said to anyone in any way. In college and graduate school I hid a lot of my thoughts in diaries. I've opened up since then, but not totally. There are lots of thoughts I choose not to share. E-mail allows me to carefully share some of those sensitive thoughts. I don't see this as being shortchanged. Nor do I want to pick up the phone every time I want to share a book recommendation with my friend or ask him for a movie recommendation. Occasionally he sends me a hilarious account of something that happened to him. Then I can read it 2-3 times because it's such a great story and I get to enjoy it more than once.

Aside from describing the centrality of e-mail in an important friendship, I want to briefly say something about conversational skills. Being a college professor, most of my daily conversations are with students. Unlike me, they grew up with cell phones. For many of them, Facebook is a vital part of their lives. And yes, they are experts at texting. I also find they possess good conversational skills. I regularly speak with students face-to-face. I am generally impressed by how they carry on conversations. They send me e-mails too, but it's not a flight from conversation. Turkle is right in saying that human relationships are rich. I think that all of the ways we communicate make our relationships rich. We talk, we text. We text while we talk. There are so many ways to enjoy each other. I like a good conversation as much as anyone. But in my life I've found that good conversations are hard to find. So I'm happy to connect with people in any way that I can.

Twitter

I deactivated my Twitter account after tweeting for a year and a half. I enjoyed tweeting and kind of like Twitter. On the other hand, it continued to occur to me that Twitter is stupid. Forgive the lack of sophistication, but "stupid" is the word that kept popping into my head. I don't think you're stupid if you use Twitter. But it really does seem to be stupid on a few levels. First, there's the annoying tendency of people to report their daily thoughts and activities. Second, there's the foolish self-surveillance aspect whereby you tell people exactly where you are if you use a mobile device to tweet. That doesn't seem very smart. Third, Twitter seems to meet everyone's need to feel important and maybe even a little famous. Twitter was tailor made for athletes, politicians, and celebrities. The rest of us just want a taste of our fifteen minutes, I guess.

Original post: July 2011

Update: November 2011

I'm back on Twitter. Like any relationship, there are push and pull factors. "Break up to make up." At the end of the day, Twitter fascinates me. So I am pulled in again and part of the fiasco. So let's go.

Update: December 2012

I can't get enough of Twitter. It's made me aware of so much sociology that I otherwise would have missed. It's connected me with interesting and smart people I otherwise would never have known in any way. I'm exposed to more ideas--so many more ideas. It's funny, silly, campy, informative, intriguing. The more I became familiar with it, and the better I came to understand the medium, the more I enjoyed and appreciated it. I think my initial post reflects a misunderstanding of the medium at the time, and I was wrong to only focus on some negative aspects about Twitter.

Update: March 2013

Sometimes I pursue attention on Twitter, sometimes I give credit where I think it's due, sometimes I just acknowledge the work of others, sometimes I try to circulate something I find interesting, sometimes I express myself, sometimes I allow myself the pleasure of being silly, sometimes I watch what others are doing and how they interact with each other. As a student of all things social, I find it essential to be on Twitter.

Update: July 2013

Twitter is an imperfect medium. How about that for your obvious statement of the day? A case can be made against Twitter, as Joe Nocera makes one here, but such standard fare criticism fails to properly recognize that Twitter is a positive force in many users' lives, and in some cases contributes to the well-being of people. For a well-researched perspective on Twitter, I recommend Dhiraj Murthy's book. Murthy doesn't tell us Twitter is the best thing since sliced bread. That is to say, he doesn't come off as a spokesperson for Twitter. Rather, he comes off as a reasonable-sounding person who has thought through (and carefully researched) the positive aspects of Twitter. When I say that Twitter contributes to the well-being of people, I have in mind chapter seven in his book. The chapter ("Twitter and Health") makes the point that people use Twitter to explore treatment options, find referrals, and as a support network. He also identifies downsides regarding Twitter and health (for example, privacy concerns). Twitter is a mixed bag.

There are lots of ways to use Twitter. I like it as a short form option. The short form complements the long form. I don't love Twitter every day of my life. Twitter actually frustrates me quite a bit (kind of like television). It's okay not to like everything about it. I try to understand Twitter and sometimes enjoy the experience.