Social Media and Friendship Inflation
April 6, 2010 by Nate Winter
For this week's article, I’d like to comment on a recent post from the Harvard Business Review blog. In it, blogger Umair Haque uses economic models to evaluate the effects of social media. His main thesis is that social media causes relationship inflation. Social media vehicles like Facebook and Twitter lead to a greater number of relationships, but they’re “thin relationships” that devalue our concept of what a relationship is.
Overall, I think this is a fascinating perspective on the larger cultural effects of social media, and I applaud the direction that Haque explores. However, I think he misses a couple points.
Relationships vs. Friendships
My biggest point of contention is the way Haque uses the term “relationship.” When he says “relationship,” he refers to a fairly close association characterized by interpersonal trust and patterns of mutual investment. All that sounds a lot more like friendship to me than just a simple relationship. Friendships and relationships are clearly related ideas, but they’re not interchangeable.
Dictionary.com affirms this semantic distinction:
relationship-- a connection, association, or involvement
friendship-- a friendly relation or intimacy
Devaluation vs. Distinction
Haque’s relationship inflation claim fuels the argument that the increase in social media connections devaluates our relationships. I take issue with this, too. I believe that most of us understand the difference between close personal friends and the thin relationships that dominate social media. Haque’s claim implies that all relationships are equal and that an overabundance of cursory acquaintances will dupe us into believing that a ‘Like’ comment and an event invitation are the pillars of true friendship.
Admittedly, some signs of confusion come from the social networks themselves. Facebook certainly suggests that everyone we’re connected to is a friend. In fact, Facebook is responsible for the emergence of “friend” as a verb, e.g. “Pomegranate friended me on Facebook.” But ultimately, Facebook isn’t fooling too many of us.
Here's my point: social media’s function is not to maintain close personal relationships. Strong relationships don't need social media to survive. Social media's value is in helping us keep in touch with people we otherwise wouldn't.
Here’s an example: if you meet someone briefly at a party or in a business meeting (a “thin relationship,” according to Haque’s vernacular), your interaction might not be serious enough to warrant an exchange of phone numbers or email addresses. Before the days of social media, that person would just fall by the social wayside. If you saw them again, you’d reconnect a bit. But if your paths never crossed again, the relationship was kaput. Social media is the perfect tool to stay in touch with these casual connections.
Three years ago or so, when I first read about Twitter in Wired, the writer described social media's value with a metaphor that I found extremely helpful. When you close your eyes and move your arms around, you know roughly where your arms are even though you can't see them. That’s a sense called proprioception.
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others function as a type of social proprioception—they give us a rough idea of what our connections are up to. Real life proprioception isn’t as good as opening your eyes to see where your limbs are, but it's better than being completely helpless in the dark. Similarly, social media interaction is no replacement for a phone conversation or catching up over lunch, but it gives us a basic awareness of what’s happening in our social circle. And there's value in that, even if we’re not mutually investing in our life-long friendships.
I still admire Haque’s attempt to apply a familiar model to the effects of social media. While I think there's merit to his “relationship inflation” concept, there are some clear weaknesses to his argument. What metaphors, analogies or models for social media have you encountered? Is there anything out there that fits?
