The discussion on social media introverts started by Pete Cashmore at Mashable reminded me of two other discussion threads on online social dynamics that I had bookmarked but not writen about.
The first discussion thread was started by Will Wilkinson who argued that it is possible to opt out of the status rat race by re-interpreting what status is –
The argument for the politics of relative position is at bottom an argument about the limits of human freedom. We are, it is alleged, locked into the rat race by the relentless engine of our evolved status-hungry nature. And we are, it is argued, almost helpless to reinterpret the context, the frame of reference, within which we evaluate our own choices. But the unique human cultural capacity—equally a part of our biology—liberates us.
Where benevolence, fidelity, cooperation, innovation, and excellence are esteemed, positional races may produce mutual advantage instead of mutual destruction. And while the game of status may be locally zero-sum, it can be globally positive-sum, as scientific, economic, and cultural entrepreneurs identify new dimensions of excellence in which to compete and earn freely conferred prestige as payment for benefit to others. We are not destined to want fancier cars, bigger houses, and more upscale outfits, nor are we helpless to feel diminished by those who out-consume us. We can opt out by opting in to competing narratives about the composition of a good life. And we do it all the time.
Then, Henry Farell pointed to the Geek Hierarchy and argued that even though it’s possible to create new status dimensions, all status dimensions are not created equal –
These indefinitely proliferating dimensions of status competition are connected to each other in their own implicit meta-ranking, which is quite well understood by all involved. Being a world-class scrabble-player isn’t likely to win you much respect among people who aren’t themselves competitive scrabble-players. It’s a very different matter if you’re a world class soccer player; you’re liable to be invited to all sorts of fun parties, hit upon by beautiful people, stalked by the paparazzi and the whole shebang. Being a world class blogger is somewhere between the two, albeit certainly much closer to the scrabble-player than the soccer star.
Clay Shirky agreed with Will Wilkinson while Timothy Lee argued that the decentralization of status is linked to the decentralization of media –
Until recently, the national media provided something like a uniform yardstick for status. In 1970, whoever appeared on national television and in national magazines on a regular basis was a celebrity by definition. And because there were only three television networks and a dozen or so national magazines, the top end of the status hierarchy really was close to zero-sum.
But as the Internet removes the artificial scarcity of soapboxes, it is becoming increasingly implausible to suggest that everyone’s fighting for a spot on a fixed national pecking order.
Finally, Danah Boyd referred to netnographic research done by the Digital Youth Group at Berkeley and USC and concluded that —
Just because status markers can be rearranged does not mean that they universally are. While we found tremendous examples of alternative status structures, the vast majority of youth that we studied used networked technologies to reinforce more traditional markers of status and hierarchy. While there are certainly youth who engage in a variety of geeky practices, the vast majority of youth use tools like MySpace, Facebook, instant messaging, and mobile phones to socialize with peers from school, church, and activities. The social hierarchies that exist in everyday life are replicated and reinforced online.
Some of us have become celebrities online, or at least micro-celebrities. I think that we’ll continue to see fantastic examples of individuals achieving status through their networked participation, but I don’t think that this will ever become mainstream. We will continue to see people achieving celebrity through online but just as celebrity is rare offline, it will be rare online too. Still, my belief is that, for most people, status will continue to be about getting validated by peers in everyday life. I think that some of the ways that validation can occur is through mediated interactions, but I don’t think we’ll see fully mediated status.
Rex Sorgatz sparked off the second discussion thread with his New York Magazine feature called ‘The Microfame Game and the New Rules of Internet Celebrity’ –
Countless people are trying to manufacture microfame, over and over again, to various ends—be it a book deal, a reality show, or just the simple ego gratification of having a lot of Facebook friends. It’s easy to be cynical about this new class of celebrity. The lines between empowerment and self-promotion, between sharing and oversharing, between community and cliques, can be blurry. You can judge for yourself whether the following microcelebs represent naked ambition, talent justly discovered, or genius marketing. The point is that renown is no longer the exclusive province of a select few. Nano-celebrity is there for the taking, if you really want it.
But microfame is its own distinct species of celebrity, one in which both the subject and the “fans” participate directly in the celebrity’s creation. Microfame extends beyond a creator’s body of work to include a community that leaves comments, publishes reaction videos, sends e-mails, and builds Internet reputations with links. Where traditional fame was steeped in class envy on the part of the audience and alienation on the part of the celebrity, microfame closes the gap between devotee and celebrity.
Though an element of luck often plays a role in achieving traditional fame, microfame is practically a science. All you need is a road map.
Rex Sorgatz’s eight-step road map to micro-fame includes (1) self-publishing your book/ art film/ music album/ photography exhibihition, (2) developing a signature style, (3) (over)shareing every aspect of yourlife on social media, (4) participating in every conversation that concerns (or doesn’t conern) you, (5) deveoping an ecosystem of fans/ friends who endlessly talk about you, (6) diversifing into various verticals even if you can’t dmiate any, (7) creating controversy and (8) persisting until you become a fameball, an “individual whose fame snowballs because journalists cover what they think other people want them to cover.” Familiar, isn’t it?
I have written before that it is difficult to step off the work-watch-spend treadmill because the the rest of the world will continue to run on it –
So, even if you say “STOP!” and step off, you find yourself standing alone, as the world passes by you, running on the treadmill, but oblivious of it.
The key, then, is to not only redefine the meaning of status, but also to redefine the boundaries of the world that is relevant to you.
The internet has made it possible for us to connect with communities that share our special obsessions, understand and value our ideaslivers. Already, some of these communities are large enough so that we can not only structure our lives around them, but also find both love and livelihood within them, and, maybe, even fame, even if it’s only micro-fame.
Carlos 9:30 am on February 10, 2009 Permalink |
Gaurav,
very interesting….it’s a great and different link between Popper and Social Media.
Congratulations,
Regards from Brazil,
Carlos
Kevin Donovan 3:21 am on February 11, 2009 Permalink |
This is the first time I’ve heard of Popper’s theory, so I may be off the mark, but as for increased data leading to clouds becoming clocks:
A lot of what I’ve been reading recently is very much of the belief that we cannot do that. For example, NNT’s “The Black Swan” and Bookstaber’s “A Demon of Our Own Design” (reviewed here: http://blurringborders.com/2008/12/27/book-review-a-demon-of-our-own-design/) are convincing accounts of our inability to use massive amounts of data and the brightest minds to predict the future.
Now, the question of how to built a robust online community isn’t exactly predicting the future of the economy, but as Kevin Kelly points out, increased measurement and data doesn’t solve all our questions. Instead, it leads to more questions and more ignorance: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/10/the_expansion_o.php
So, even if we “clockify” all the new media clouds we currently have, it seems another cloud front will come rolling in.