Friday, 23 August 2013

A Facebook Autobiography

(Christensen, n.d.)
The distribution of power within online social networking sites may appear to be evenly spread, however when you dig a little deeper, you find that this is not necessarily the case. In social networks such as Facebook, 'friends' = power. The more friends you have, the greater your network community becomes, and the more authority you can obtain over the other members in your 'community'. This is because, when others see that you have many connections, they generate a greater respect for you. You may have heard people boasting about how many 'friends' they have on Facebook. This act brings a virtual struggle for dominance into the real world, consequently aiding to blur the lines between virtual life and reality.

In addition to this, as mentioned in McNeill's biography on There is no "I" in Network, someone's authority and level of respect on Facebook can be determined by the comments posted on their "Wall". If these comments are negative or degrading, then the image of that person will also be poor and vice versa (p108-109).  

McNeill also explores the concept that Facebook is a form of autobiography. The traditional definition of an autobiography is "a history of a person's life written or told by that person" (Dictionary.com, 2013). Facebook is one of the social networking sites that has come the closest to adhering to this definition. This is due to the application of a "Profile" that each member must fulfil to some extent. The members real name must be provided, which is what distinguishes this site from the other networks which allow you to remain anonymous. Facebook is like a story of your life and can therefore be considered an autobiography; however, the fact that others can comment and influence this 'story' is what separates it from the traditional definition (McNeill, 2012).

Another difference between Paperback autobiographies and Facebook is that paper autobiographies have an end or a conclusion. Whereas, Facebook is a continuous story that is constantly being added to. In this respect, Facebook is similar to the Aboriginal concept of Songlines. Songlines are, according to the Aboriginal culture, the lines or paths that their ancestors took when 'singing' the earth into existence (Chatwin, 1987). It was mentioned in the week four lecture that "there is no sense of linear timelines in Songlines" (Van Luyn, 2013). The descendants today continue to travel down these Songlines and sing the same songs as their ancestors to help improve the earth. It is a continuous and collaborative activity, similar to the continuous and collaborative 'story' created on Facebook.

Reference List

Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Unknown25 August 2013 at 17:37

    Hi Grace. A great post you've put up here. I identified strongly with your observation of the Indigenous Australian's song-lines and the networked narratives of Facebook. The notion of a continuous and collaborative story featured in both was well presented in your argument. It has made me wonder about the connection between one's own identity and the need for agency and community, even within a cyber world. At first, the McNiell (2012) reading made me question the authenticity of self on-line given our story is largely shaped by software and other users. Yet your comparison between the song-lines and Facebook has enabled me to see that, like the song-lines of The Dreaming, not all stories have an ending or sole author (Chatwin, 1987); our identities in both the real and virtual world are ever-changing and widely influenced. This no doubt enriches the experience. A rather comforting thought I think:)

    Reference list:

    Chatwin, B. (1987). Chapter 3, in Songlines (pp.11-15). London, England: Johnathan Cape.

    McNeill, L. (2012). There is no “I” in network: Social networking sites and post-human auto-biography. In Biograohy, 35(1), 101-118.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown26 August 2013 at 12:02

    Hi Grace,

    I think you have some great ideas in your post. Reading through some of your comments helped me understand McNeil's readings when she talks about autobiography and her simulation of the "profile" (McNeil, 2012) . I got a bit lost in what she was trying to say, and your blog as made it easier for me to understand.

    Although I have a slightly different take with the comparison of song lines. I do definitely agree with you and also with Hannah's comment above about both Songlines and Facebook being a form of narrative that tells a story and I love how you have really identified not all stories have a sole author (Chatwin 1987) as you stated a collaborative story.

    To me this was as easily understood in the readings as it is in your blog. However I think there is a slight difference in understanding the meaning of ending. I agree that Facebook is an unending narrative, "that Facebook is a continuous story that is constantly being added to" however I do not think it is as easy as to say this is similar to Songlines. I think Songlines do not necessarily have an ending, but it also isn't being constantly added to. It is more of a continuous story that goes round in circles, telling the same creation story over and over.

    Reference List

    Chatwin, B. (1987). Chapter 3, in Songlines (pp.11-15). London, England: Johnathan Cape.

    McNeill, L. (2012). There is no “I” in network: Social networking sites and post-human auto-biography. In Biograohy, 35(1), 101-118.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown16 September 2013 at 17:22

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown16 September 2013 at 17:29

    Hi grace, that is some nice work- really well concluded in my opinion. The notion of Facebook being biographical kind of eludes me in the general sense of the 'Home Page' (-Home?) but I have an arts/poetry page that really does map the last two years of my life- (https://www.facebook.com/groups/169746829711660/) But to me this is just on-line publishing.
    For 'post-human autobiography' (McNeill, 2012) to occur, the author has to not only record the diary of the real self, but also the experiences of an on-line identity of self that is susceptible and influenced by on-line interactions; such as the ones you mentioned on Facebook where negative comments can alter the perceptions of self and others.
    But I must say, I do find the McNeill article disturbing.
    'Does the machine-human co-production make the digital subject inherently posthuman...?' (McNiell, 2012)
    This notion of 'cyborgs' messes with my head, but maybe I'm just techno-phobic? I think the 'panopticon' (Turkle, 1995)is bound to affect our sense of self as technology continues to shape our lives.

    Reference list-
    McNeill, L. (2012). There is no “I” in network: Social networking sites and post-human auto-biography. In Biography, 35(1), 101-118.

    Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (pp.246-249). New York, U.S.A.: Simon & Schuster

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)