What do you think? Does using Facebook cause a person to have more shallow relationships? Many might assume so. In fact, much of the criticism of online Social Networking (especially from Catholic and religious circles) is that it encourages and supports shallow, superficial relationships at the expense of more meaningful ones. But is it true?
Actually, no. Recent studies, to what may be the surprise of many critics, show exactly the opposite.
A pew study this year revealed that people who use Facebook the most had 9% more “close relationships” than other internet users. This is a fairly trivial and obvious point for anyone who uses Facebook well. But it’s one that needs to continue to be made to many parish leaders. Well here’s some data to help do that.
Another common criticism of online social networking is that people use it to form a lot of fake relationships with people they’ve never met in person. This, at least in regard to Facebook, is also not true.
By far, the majority (93%) of most user’s “friendships” on Facebook are with people they’ve met in person. And 90% of their friendships are with people they’ve met more than once.
Facebook users are also more likely:
- to get more social support than others
- to have revived old, dormant relationships
- to be more politically engaged.
Click here to read the full study.
Facebook (and other online social networks like it) is not just something to be passively allowed or accepted, but something to be promoted. Keep in mind that these stats are just for the average user pioneering a digital continent where the Church is largely MIA. Imagine how much such stats could be improved if the Church could fully sink her teeth into this stuff even better promoting and encouraging its proper use? This is only the beginning.
When used correctly (and especially with the Good in mind), Facebook (and the like) is actually very helpful and powerful at doing many of the things inherent to the mission of the Church. And thankfully studies like this are confirming that Facebook is not only not the debil, but that it’s actually good for something Good.
Comments
Post a Comment
Great post, Matt!
While social networks may cause damage to relationships, they mostly enhance relationships for the average person. I have countless stories from my life and my friends who have connected on social networks over the years or re-found (re-followed? re-friended?) others.
BTW, I find your misspelling of “devil” (debil) in the final sentence kinda fun… Channeling a young child’s pronunciation, perhaps? LOL!
Peace to your day!
- @CatholicMeme (aka @BarbaraKB) on Twitter
I’m going on the assumption that even a shallow relationship is often better than a severed relationship, which is what I’d undoubtedly have if I quit using Facebook. It also is interesting how people will discuss things on Facebook that we never get around to in person—the serious, heavy stuff.
I wonder how many of the “strangers,” as defined by the above survey, are not complete strangers in the true sense of the word but are actually friends of friends? You can sometimes learn a lot about a person by the company he keeps. I try to limit my interaction to people I’ve met, but I have made a rare exception for this very reason.
I just got on Facebook this past summer. It has allowed me to connect up with a sizable portion of my extended family ... are we “close” ? ... not so much, but we are more “in touch” than ever before ... and I like that. Ditto for a handful of high-school friends with whom I can now keep up in a long-distance kind of way.
But for substantive relationships ... ya gotta do that IRL ...
very good post; but using to spread the faith is a good use; but then there comes a time when you spread the faith to a fellow Catholic and classmate and the friendship ends at least on facebook or I hope just on facebook and they block you because of it. Jesus never said spreading the faith would be easy or pain free.
Interesting post. I was on FB for about a year and half before getting off completely. One of the reasons I abandoned FB was because the relationships I had with my family became more shallow, not more meaningful. For example, my sister would comment on a status post of some kind that I would write in lieu of actually calling me. Same with my mom. And the extended family members that I had friended did allow me to be in greater contact with them, but the quality of the contact was poor at best. (In these cases, I saw a side of some of my nieces that I would rather have been ignorant to—pictures from parties, shallow activities, etc.) In short, the “good” of these relationships was largely missing and replaced by something of convenience rather than substance.
Facebook has departed from my life as it proved be the a venue for my vanity and a soapbox for my irritation with our government. Thought it best to remove the log from my eye.
In addition to the obvious problems of the study (measuring the authenticity of relationships based on self-reported responses, and confusing correlation with causation), both the study and the NCR article fail to address the concerns of Facebook on a philosophical level. My past criticisms of Facebook can be grouped under two main points. First, Facebook (along with other media, including the television) has altered our definition of “authentic relationship.” Thus, asking Facebook users to report on whether or not they have “authentic relationships” quite misses the point. Second, regardless of whether or not Facebook can be used for positive purposes, the medium of its communication (or any form of communication for that matter) is inseparable form the content being mediated. Therefore, there are objective and unavoidable consequences of using Facebook as a mode of communication, consequences that are inherent to the very nature of the medium itself. While technologies such as Facebook can surely be used for both positive and negative purposes, this in no way means that the technology is “value natural.” It’s very use will inevitably form its users. It seems that the common “condonations” of Facebook, even for “evangelical purposes” have yet to address these more serious and subtle concerns ... some of which are being expressed here by other commenters. I have given extensive critiques of Facebook in the past, based on Catholic philosophical principles and the ideas of Neil Postman, author of “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, a similar critique of the television culture. I will, however, resist the urge the shamelessly self-link in a blog comment.
One principle at work here is that the easier and less obtrusive a method of communication is, the lower the quality of what gets communicated. We see this with texting, where someone will send a text message about something that would never be important enough to warrant interrupting the recipient with a phone call about. For that reason I have text messages disabled on my cell phone. If people used as much discretion about a message’s importance when sending e-mail or texting as they do when they call someone on the phone, these technologies wouldn’t be so obtrusive, and might actually be a joy to use.
The other problem with a personal Facebook page is that its only context is a person, which, in my case at least, is hardly worthy of anyone else’s attention. I’m not really interested in what anyone else thinks of me. (If I were I wouldn’t post half the comments in forums like this that I do.) I am interested in discerning the truth of things, which I think is accomplished best by doing just what I’m doing here, commenting on articles with a topic that provides a natural and proper context for discussion.
The first paragraph of my last comment contains a seeming contradiction. The first sentence should have been:
One principle at work here is that the easier and less obtrusive a method of communication is perceived to be, the lower the quality of what gets communicated.
Kevin,
I agree, but I would ask you to consider something. You wrote, “If people used as much discretion about a message’s importance when sending e-mail or texting as they do when they call someone on the phone, these technologies wouldn’t be so obtrusive, and might actually be a joy to use.” I claim that the lack of discretion is inevitably because of the very nature of the technology. Let me give the easiest example. Twitter has a certain character limit on its communications. This is something inseparable from the medium itself. Thus, Twitter communication will always involved short and abbreviated sentences lacking the depth of a face-to-face conversation. The aspects of other forms of communications that are problematic may not be as obvious as the Twitter character limit, but they are there nonetheless. Therefore, the “If” you mention, I claim, is not necessary. These forms of technology communication will always come with a lack of discretion. It is in their very nature. (Such is also true of blog writing and commenting, which allows for a separation of person involved in communication and, at it most extreme, complete anonymity.)
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.