Thesis Title: Subtitle

Configuring Parochial Space as a ‘Village Square’: Gemeinschaft and Reflexivity

As discussed above, Facebook can be conceptualised as a parochial space constructed by users in the context of pre-ordered architecture. This architecture is built with the explicit purpose of facilitating “the digital mapping of people's real-world social connections…in a trusted environment” (Facebook.com 2013). Thus, the core purpose of Facebook is to enable online sociality in a way that mirrors what may occur offline. What the architects of Facebook have created is a place where users can go to keep abreast of what is happening in their social circle. Taking the idea of parochial space further, the metaphor of the traditional, or pre-modern, village square is a useful metaphor. In a world where networks are more widely spatially distributed, less coherent, with fewer overlapping affiliations (Urry 2003), Facebook represents a consolidation of these networks in one social space. Facebook shares significant characteristics as a social space with a village square. When I speak of the village, I am referencing something similar to what Tönnies (1991) describes as gemeinschaft. Tönnies (1991: 300) defines gemeinschaft as a “lasting and genuine form of living together.” Pre- modern communities are characterised by an emphasis on place-based solidarity; without the space they occupy they would not exist (Hull 2011). This place-based solidarity allows for frequent contact with known others. One does not have to imagine who might inhabit the village, because they are known. As such, long-standing and sentimental relationships dominate. In contrast to the transience that often characterises relationships to space and place in late modern life (Bauman 2000), the village square is a place of stability and continuity.
The village square, like Facebook contains work, kin and acquaintance connections in addition to more intimate relationships. These relationships can function to reinforce homophilic networks and connections. Additionally, as a social space they both contain similar social actions serving as a site of gossip, observation and participation in social activities. Like the village square, interacting in the space of Facebook requires a certain amount of caution in order to avoid reputational damage.

Facebook represents a different manifestation of the village square as users can practice self-censorship, strategic disclosure, and very selective engagement.

Conceptualising Facebook as a ‘village square’ brings together several concepts that are regularly used in the literature on socially mediated communication. One such idea is that of the ‘imagined audience’. This concept traces its roots to Goffman’s work on self-presentation. However, it is specifically concerned with self and interaction in mediated environments (Goffman 1959; Litt 2012). The imagined audience is what individuals imagine themselves to be communicating with in a mediated
environment (Litt 2012). This concept is largely dependent on the idea that in mediated situations the audience to which one is communicating is unknown or difficult to determine, making the performance of self and impression management a more complex and conscious task.

Previous research examining Facebook has assumed that the contextual framework through which social performances are shaped and understood is lacking (e.g.

Papacharissi 2012). This is primarily because Facebook allows users to sustain a greater number of connections than they otherwise would. This means that they are unable to imagine their audience. Litt argues “the size, composition, boundaries, accessibility, and cue availability of our communication partners during everyday interactions make it nearly impossible to determine the actual audience” (2012: 332). This argument relies on the idea that the audiences available through social media are more diverse, and thus more complicated to negotiate than ever before. It also assumes that there is a cognitive limit to the number of people of which an individual can be conscious at any given time (Dunbar 1992) meaning that although participants on social networking sites such as Facebook have lists of potential audience members available to them, they are cognitively unable to account for them. As previously noted, all users in the sample added people to their Facebook that were, in some way, previously socially known to them, even if they had not met face-to-face. Further, users acknowledged that having different social circles on Facebook influenced what they posted, indicating that users are, in fact, cognitively able to account for those who they befriend on Facebook. For example, when asked how having different social circles might influence what is posted on Facebook, Bird explained:

I'm more careful about personal things…anything specific about love/relationships, more personal "I'm not doing too well" posts, ...I remember my msn status updates a few years ago and they were very personal, I'm much more controlled now, but might also have something to do with the offset of puberty of course...I also try not to post things that could be misunderstood by people who don't know me well…basically everything I post are things that I wouldn't hesitate to say in a bar with a group of acquaintances.

This demonstrates an awareness of others present in the village square and the potential for reputational damage if behaviour on Facebook is inappropriate. Far from struggling to

account for an invisible audience, this demonstrates that users are in fact aware of the diversity of those they are speaking to and attempt to account for it. For example, for Bird, the management of the space happens in two ways. Firstly, Bird selectively adds friends to Facebook, and carefully adjusts her privacy setting. Secondly, in managing disclosure, Bird compares Facebook to a parochial space (a bar) and adjusts her behaviour accordingly. In this instance the bar described by Bird is parochial as it fits with Lofland’s characterisation of parochial spaces as containing acquaintance networks. By imagining her audience is more distant than close, Bird effectively manages her online behaviour to avoid the tensions other authors have identified as being inherent to mediated publicness (Baym and boyd 2012; Litt 2012). While misalignments in audience and content do occur and incur negative consequences, these are perhaps overstated in popular media and perhaps occur less frequently than assumed or reported. Likewise other participants, instead of imagining all of their audience, imagine a segment of it, and use that as a yardstick for what is and is not acceptable in this setting. Sally describes her strategy this way:

I’m friends with my mum on Facebook. Anything I don’t want my mum to see shouldn’t be [posted] on Facebook. And I was also dubious at the start of having people from work on my Facebook, and I still am, it depends on the context and the people….So those sorts of people, and because of the professional context I don’t want you know, a picture of me being a slut, getting drunk on there. Not that that ever happens, but that’s an example.

The idea that the online sphere makes the audience unknown (boyd 2006; Litt 2012), over- simplifies complex and contextually bound practices and does not really account for the ways in which Facebook is designed to foster familiarity among known acquaintances rather than publicness.

Facebook allows users a level of control over the parochial space not usually afforded by the village square. This level of reflexivity is what distinguishes Facebook from Tönnies’ (1991) village square. Facebook is a post-modern reconfiguring of pre-modern social arrangements. Urry (2003) argues that the mobility that characterises later-modernity produces new social spaces, and along with this, new forms of social life. Facebook can be considered to be a product of various forces that have been heightened in late modernity, with mobility and technological acceleration chief among them. However, as

previously demonstrated, Facebook is a parochial space which largely contains the familiar. Thus, in some ways Facebook is a return to gemeinschaft (community). For Tönnies, the pre-modern gemeinschaft was the only way for an individual’s essence as a social being to be fully realised. Tönnies’ gemeinschaft was dependent on kinship ties and common social norms. This is similar to Durkheim’s concept of mechanical solidarity wherein society is held together by the interdependence of its parts. In Tönnies’ gemeinschaft the necessity of the interdependence is intimate, necessary and located in place, not functional and relational. Tönnies argued that all social relationships are created by human will, but the social relationships described by Tönnies are not what contemporary sociologists would call voluntary social relationships. Instead they are involuntary social relationships characterised by locality, kinship, religion and a collective relationship to the land that necessitates collective cooperative action (Tönnies ^1991).

It is not these elements of gemeinschaft that are at work on Facebook; what Tönnies is describing pre-dates the move towards individualism that characterises the late modern context. That is not to say that there are not elements of locality, kinship and common religious belief present on Facebook. However, as the late modern context is defined by differentiation, not commonality, these are not its central qualities. Instead, Facebook constitutes a reflexive re-doing of some of the other social characteristics of gemeinschaft. Specifically, Facebook helps facilitate incidental social contact, which Tönnies argues is central in maintaining affective social relationships like friendship since it provides digitally what Tönnies calls “proximity of habitation” (1991: 300). Proximity of habitation fosters “inurement to and intimate knowledge” (Tönnies 1991: 300) of others in the village. Indeed, the ability of Facebook to help participants get a (partial) view of their ‘friends’ (and friends’ lives) was often mentioned as one of Facebook’s better qualities and was part of offline conversation. Camilla (F, 30) explains,

Well, we’ll see what’s happening to other people’s lives. When I meet with other friends, we just talk about Facebook posts and did you see her posts? Did you know that she’s travelling? It’s not bad gossip. It’s just something to talk about.

For many participants, the primary attraction of Facebook is its constant social hum. Indeed, Ellison et al. (2014b) found that Facebook serves a similar function to gossip as it allows users have an ambient awareness of what it happening in their networks.

Zuckerberg (2013) acknowledges that this awareness of what is happening in social networks is important to users stating that, “Being ambiently [sic] aware of what’s going on is I think a very valuable thing.” Zuckerberg (2013) further went on to say that Facebook would attempt to facilitate this ambient awareness in further product offerings. This further supports the characterisation of Facebook and as a reflexive reimagining of the pre-modern village square. Like the village, Facebook is a way to quickly find out what is happening with little effort; much like visiting a village square.

Camilla: I think it’s because it’s a way of knowing what’s happening. Especially when I get very busy with uni, then it’s a good way of knowing what’s going on, what’s happening around.

However, unlike the pre-modern village, which was small and geographically contained, Facebook connections may be dispersed over long distance. Facebook functions in a similar way to a village square because it has the ability to locate these diverse connections into a persistent, although disembodied social space. Despite Facebook’s village-like qualities, its beneficial social hum can be acquired without compulsory engagement. Unlike engagement in the village square, which is compulsory due to corporeal presence, users on Facebook can choose whether or not to make themselves ‘visible’ in the space to a certain extent. Profiles remain visible whether a user is on Facebook or not, but posting and being seen to be online through the IM function are all negotiable aspects through which users can resist Facebook’s push to sociality.

Individuals can also choose to not interact on Facebook at all as, unlike the village square, it is not a compulsory space. The village square is a compulsory parochial space because, unlike Facebook, it is impossible to disguise or hide one’s presence and participation. Being in a village square means being corporeally present, regardless of whether one is participating or not. Facebook does not have the same demands of corporeal presence. Facebook users can disguise their presence by not engaging in active use, such as posting, responding to and liking status updates. Additionally, users have the option to become invisible on Facebook’s IM function and not respond to private messages. Many users take advantage of this, with Irene (F, 31) stating, “I'm usually invisible.” Additionally, Sage chooses whether she wants to be visible or not depending on whom she may be speaking to. However, she prefers to be visible explaining, “No, I always leave it on unless someone annoying starts talking to me and I
pretend that I go offline.” So, while a user may be logged into their account and using Facebook, their presence is not noted or recorded by others who are also in the space.

Additionally, the architecture of Facebook enables users to control the composition of their village square, and pick a safe pathway through potentially problematic social situations. Again, this is reminiscent of de Certeau’s description of walking the city and provides a language with which to describe a user’s agency within Facebook’s architecture. Although Facebook is parochial, Sally is also generally careful and reflexive regarding what she chooses to share. In fact, some participants prefer to disclose as little information as possible. Content that could be read as statements of taste is carefully curated. Sally’s strategy for managing this content is to remove it after a short time.

I tend to put a time limit on things, unless it’s something I purposely want to be permanent. What I mean by that is if I have this…this is how I’m feeling about this thing someone said in politics status update, I’ll keep that for maybe 3 days and then when I think that it’s no longer important, then I get rid of it.

In addition to being able to reflexively manage content on Facebook, which is a form of agency, Facebook also provides a place where people can go to be social whether actively or passively. Eva (F, 25) uses Facebook socially, regularly commenting on and liking friends’ status updates. She also uses its events’ functions to organise and participate in offline social activities. However, since 2010 Eva has not posted any of her own status updates. Initially, this behaviour was born out of a desire for privacy:

I stopped posting because I was coming back from the UK with my tail between my legs kind of thing. I didn’t want people to know what was going on. I let a few choice people know and that was all…I have no intentions to post again anytime soon. Next year, it’ll be 3 years since last posting…

Facebook is a flexible medium, and this is borne out by Eva’s accounts. Ignoring the prompts of Facebook’s architecture that push her towards sharing and sociality has not cost Eva much socially. This is what de Certeau (1984) would term an ambiguity within the structure. Not posting personal status updates requires ignoring every prompt that Facebook presents when logging in, as well as generally held social

etiquette that sharing on Facebook needs to be at least minimally reciprocal. Eva estimates that “I’ve lost only 15-ish friends over that three year period from not posting. Not bad really.” Eva says she will probably ^{start using Facebook more actively, and reflexively, in the future as it is potentially useful to} her future career path. She states that she will probably use Facebook more “if I get into medicine – a lot of stuff appears to happen via Facebook when it comes to med study.”

The flexibility that Facebook offers for a participant is distinctly different from the village square in which failure to participate would be more acutely noticed, or even sanctioned. ^{On Facebook, one can engage or observe as needed, but the place remains; it is a consistent} and reliable structure that facilities impromptu socialising.

This is something that has been diminished in wider western society by the decline of localised third places where people can come and go and happen upon each other and has long been an issue of concern (Oldenburg 1989; Putnam 2001). Oldenburg (1989) in particular argues that the places between home and work (third places) are where communities find their life and vitality. Oldenburg (1989: 6-8) believes that the lack of social cohesion in contemporary society is caused by the lack of place centred communities. In response to this, some have argued that technology creates a new third space for hanging out (boyd 2007). By (re)creating a parochial realm, Facebook may represent a step back towards some of the affordances of third places like the village square.

Rather than bestowed through birth and kinship, this village is intentionally created and reflexively ‘curated’ by the user to meet varied social and relational needs and obligations. Thus, as a curated social space, the act of ‘being public’ necessarily takes on a more reflexive nature. Like the village, Facebook is a consistent and reliable structure where participants can engage or observe as needed. It is a place to go where others will be, to share and obtain communal validation. However, social obligations, technical structures, and corporate interests mean the village, which controls, shapes and sometimes problematises our friendships is not fully within our control. The lack of control is not unique to Facebook, since individual inhabitants did not control the village environment either. But, unlike the village, norms on Facebook are abstract created by the creators and controllers of Facebook, as well as organic. Even the ritual of posting a birthday greeting to someone on Facebook was challenged by some participants, which

tacitly acknowledges that some of the sociality on Facebook is directed by its architecture, as demonstrated by the recreated status update below.

Fig. 4: Zoe removing her birthday information

Zoe’s birthday is in January, not February, which underscores the importance of not giving or making public certain birthday information on Facebook in an endeavour to reclaim the authenticity and genuineness of birthday greetings. While claims may be made about technology as the “architect of our intimacies” (Turkle 2011: 1), small acts of resistance, such as the one pictured above, mean that intimacies can be reclaimed. This is contrary to Turkle’s (2011) claim that social networking sites leave users socially impoverished in the long run, as participants did not conceive their use in these terms. Sociality on Facebook operates in addition to, not instead of, other forms of social connectedness.

Sally: For example if you’re at work and you want to take a break, but obviously you can’t go and have a cup of coffee with someone, you can go, hmm you know, what’s going on in the lives of my friends. Oh look! Social person. So absolutely, fundamentally it’s a social thing it’s a good way, you

know if I feel like being ^{social, what’s going on? That sort thing, it’s just the go to place, and then you} know, because you’re friends with people who in some area or another you have something in common with the things they post are generally interesting…there’s always something going on.

This assessment of Facebook aligns with previous research on mobile phone usage, which has suggested that technological advances and social practices co-evolve to reconfigure, as opposed to speed up (or supplement) the lived experience (Wajcman 2008). Indeed, Zoe equates her Facebook use with mobile phone use, demonstrating that Facebook is integrating with previous social and technological patterns/practices.

Zoe: It's like you want to know if someone's talking to you and stuff. It's like being a little bit social. It's like checking your phone for text messages. Like oh, has anyone got anything to say to me today? Or is anything happening with this event and stuff?

Hence, while users may be able to engage in a reflexive reimaging of some of the qualities of a pre-modern village, Facebook’s status as an abstract space means that users’ sociality is shaped by Facebook’s formal, quantitative characteristics; the code that constitutes its architecture.