Encounters: The new rules

Why it pays to be nice and not caught kissing fish

Encounters are everywhere. So much so, the dilemma often lies in the when, where and how to disconnect. Being a social scientist and etiquette being my ‘thing’ I like to fall back on the assumption that if you treat other’s as you would be done by, then this is shows ‘good form’ for all elements of social life.

Social life is full of obligations – that email you’re supposed to be replying to right now, that conference call scheduled for tomorrow. Thus, by mediating our encounters to the nth degree this can exhibit an almost neurotic orderliness as commitments are fulfilled and expectations realised. Or not.

But, where is the social structure upon which we can all rely? Presumably, we learn a good deal about the various nuances of how to handle encounters, by experiencing such interactions as they crop up in daily life. Face-to-face the ‘whatever’ that happens through social exchanges is, for the most part, kept in check by knowing both what you and I are doing at the same time. When this is mediated through various technologies, social platforms and ‘geeky’ trails’, other methods recommend themselves, however.

A characteristic of face-to-face encounters is that they occur in the immediate presence of one another. In this instant parties are usually uninterrupted from other social persistence. Increasingly social technologies make possible the same type of exchanges. Take Twitter. Real time. All the time. Here the order pertains because of what is bought to the table – or rather Twitter’s – and, thus, this is accepted as ‘normal’ for the interaction order. This is why you can’t tweet more than 140 characters.

But there are degrees of difference. Not better, nor worse, but certainly different in conventions and in protocols. For example, generationally those of my father’s age (dad you’re still young at heart and in looks – Mr Clooney has nothing on you!) tend to be more conservative. Not socially in terms of the number of friends (although this can be a truism on Facebook) but conservative as in a small ‘c’ for cautious.

This can be frustrating for many those of us who have grown up as the popularised GenX, who are confident with an array of technology gadgets and belong to more than one SNS at one time. Pervasive, yes. But this does not necessarily make us careless. In contrast to others we appear as the go-getters, what my father would observe as the ‘risk-takers’ and ‘makers’. Risk takers, because it is likely that you, like myself, hold people in your network that you may not even have ‘met’ – but share friends, work colleagues etc in common, so they make for a valuable contact. Risk makers as you actively seek choose to live daily life through various broadcast channels; to see ‘what everyone else is up to’; to ‘keep in touch’; and establish and retain your own of social presence.

Ultimately this is about getting used to living a constantly connected, pervasive and (potentially) minutely examined lifestyle. ‘Easy’, or rather second nature for technology enthusiasts. But this represents a lifestyle that is harder to understand and infiltrate for those who are at a distance from such platforms and devices.

What we all share in common, however, is the process of creativity, embracement of change and a sharpening of the resolution of our present experiences – as it occurs in the NOW. Rather than ever being ‘offline’ or ‘unreal’, by allowing the momentum of the flux and flows of social information to rise in a cacophony of noise around us takes us from sheer being into becoming. And by ‘becoming’ I mean becoming more networked and more adept to share constant updates and information with others. In short, ‘geek it good’ and avoid kissing fishes.

Social media and differentiation: Obsessed much?

Modern society is now charged by social media in/action(s). The what you do, when you are doing it and how you say you're doing it.

Equally society has always been characterised by powerful social divisions - whether along the lines of technology ownership: 'you don't have an iPhone?!', gender: 'girl geeks don't code', class: 'MySpace for 'chavs', Facebook for BBC/Guardian middle classes', country/region: 'Bebo most popular in Ireland, Mixi in Japan', etc. Traditionally, far from being universal, social life is disrupted by forms of communication, patterns of consumerism, engagement and access. Precisely how these operate in daily life and relate to one another represents major issues. Phillip Nowark, of Social Media Unraveled.com, suggests a 'No Farting: A guide to Twitter Etiquette' - which links rather nicely to my own etiquette sensibilties I explore on properfacebooketiquette. Here it is the attention to social details that matter. For example, the perceptions of a time famine reflect the greater pressures on our (busy) lives with regard to work, play, friends, family and acquaintences.

Linda Buzzell for AlterNet explores the 'psychological impact' of our fast-paced and highly pressured world. Calling for us to Slow Down: How Our Fast-Paced World Is Making Us Sick. With the greater outlets for participation, the visibility of what we are doing, shown in real time - so as we are doing it - point to a greater intensity to be of-the-moment and constantly aware of others. Together, these characteristics are all candidates for what is a multi-casual explanation of frequent social anxities about the potential demise of known social etiquette.

So are we all obsessed? And not with the content of our underware.

Modes of social media expression have become a principal form of social distinction and require (new) social explanations. For example, do too many tweats in one day screams 'desperate' and 'annoying' to friends? And what are the consequences of syncing your Tweets with your Facebook updates?... Just some of the dilemmas that will be addressed by @tweetsuavities - a new Twitter feed that explores the way in which social issues are to be tweeted, or rather treated, with the benefits, pleasures and possible pitfalls one might expect to accure using Twitter as one element of social media.

One particular issue that interests me, is the (possible) substitution between our modes of encounter that emerge constantly through streams of social information. Take, for example, if a friend is 'missing' on Facebook, more than likely it will be revealed what 'they are doing' via Twitter, Flickr, their email etc. The reason for my interest, aside from usual sociological nosiness, is the succession of each socially mediated 'part' of a person which have different consequences for social relations/hips. the obligations and bonds associated with making sure our friends are sufficiently fed with our information (as communal discourse), against our familial ties and relationships (as a more domestic discourse) can differ widely in a social market of constant exchange and update.

In short, social media acts as a vehicle for our socialisation and additional social preferences. Our decisions are made about whether 'I like them' and so will subscribe to their feed(s), tweets etc.) Thus there is the reproduction of relationships as we hold them outside social media, which go on to influence how we might be encouraged to transform our relations in the future...

Where can you find out more? Well some of the above requires following @tweetsuavities, @mazphd and reading properfacebooketiquette...

Social codes get personal

Fresh from the WARC conference in London it is clear that social research – that’s research that’s not only about and based on the 'social', but research that is primarily about you and therefore assumed to apply to me too – is increasingly personal.

Amongst business the customer behaviour that carries ‘online’ is seen to reflect personal activities and consumer decisions that are as applicable to ‘offline’ lives. One word that has increasingly gained traction amongst marketing commerce is the richness of ‘community’. It would be easy to forgive businesses for ‘not getting’ social media such as Facebook and Twitter. But big names are beginning to come around to the social significance (and influence) of such tools (e.g. Richard Branson's Virgin Group on Facebook). A popular response is to raise a debeliberately branded identity – whether as a Facebook group for ‘brand fans’ or image ‘campaign’ on Flickr. These share in common an optimistic and positive sense of a ‘community’ situation.

During Web 1.0 cyberspace, ‘community’ was the idenfication with a loci of 'users' who may or (more likely) may not know the ‘real’ you. This period (the 1990s – early 2000s) was the domain of usernames and celebration of a virtual reality. Today, the social media landscape has changed and offers something with an altogether different and more real emphasis. In this next version of the web as a ‘Web 2.0’, one could argue that what goes on ‘online’ is intended to concur with the same person(a) and preferences ‘offline’. Here we have hit a social convergence. This means the implications of identifying yourself as part of a particular Group, SNS or Network can be as provocative as inducing a newsgroup flame war back in the cyberspace days. The main point, is that such actions reveal specific aspects of the ourselves and whether we are prepared for it or not can be clamed by others as particular social identifiers.

This raises significant issues about whether social media tools encourage actions outside of conventional social practices and regulations. One particularly disquietening issue is that of social surveillance and rights to privacy. Just two weeks ago after Mark Zuckerberg issued what could be construed as his second ‘public apology’ on Facebook, this time motivated by desire to update the sites Terms and Conditions, represented a move into the broadcast age of social information, and raised questions about how to apply formal codes conduct with regard to the ownership and sharing of personal data. Zuckerberg argued that users had an opportunity to reply in the Facebook blog comments. An opportunity that one could view as more visible than other forms of social media content and feedback (?!)…. Or perhaps not, within 24hours Zuckerberg had re-posted concern about 'Governing the Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way' to the sites Terms and Condition page.

Whilst this discussion does (I am relieved to say) continue to ‘rage’ on the Facebook blog, further issues arise about whether social media data should apply only to one particular site, or whether there should be a code that can be put into practice and holds recognition across all platforms and applications.

Presently we are without formal codes of practice, at times we stumble ‘blindly in the dark’ to self-regulate our own information - how many of us really acknowledge such possibilities and for example, use that Privacy tab (top right of the Facebook page). Two bedrock principles for safeguarding social information is i) self-awareness and ii) the fortification of the data that is constantly sent out – whether intended or not. This is important, as once something is published and broadcast across social media it has staying power. This is real ‘stickability’ of social content, the effects of which we are yet to fully appreciate. Even by ‘deleting’ that Wall post, or unflattering picture this is no protection against data retrieval at a later date. All our information can (and in all liklihood will) be retrieved. It is not just Google who has your history. Potentially so does ‘everyone’ else.

The proccess of enjoying social media is carried out in public, increasingly the technology is in real-time and with real friends. And this reality is interactive. Information is shared and responded through communication. Thus, there is not an ‘end’ of the process.

The difficulty is that individuals have a different awareness and set of social standards when it comes to what they share and with whom. This distinction is important. Years from now the MySpacer’s of yester-year will have to contend and be prepared to defend not only their music tastes, but what they shared with their friends and why.

However, such frequent updates does not necessarily equate to a lowering of social standards or indeed ethics. The identification here is that individuals may increasingly be sharing more information, but they are also doing this with very different sense of what is private, public or even suitable for content. Social transparency sums up this taken-for-granted link to external sources for interaction. For example, where there is a widely accepted use of Facebook (what do you mean you’re not on Facebook?!) there is also assumed disclosure of personal information, interests and affiliations.

For many, the use of social media is intended as a personal act of expression, where the standard in terms of social value are far from irrelevant, but can easily become misplaced when it comes to personal privacy. Are formal standards required to help shift awareness from a latent ‘which of my friends can see what’ to overt ‘it’s really important that I protect my data and private information’ concern?

Thus far we have only our own personal ethical views for guidance. Perhaps our Facebook actions, Twitter tweats, images on Flickr should all be subject to professional codes of social practice... At this point, one can only join in the games and find out the rules later.