Not all interaction is created socially

by Mark Pollard on January 28, 2009 · Comments

in Communities, Social media marketing

Be warned – reading this post may result in you losing yourself in abstraction.

Yesterday I posted up my Ignite presentation about building communities.

One of the points I made is that anonymity is antithesis to community – and it led to some interesting debate.

But first, to explain: I believe that communities are based on relationships that are anchored in some sort of authenticity. Now, I’m happy for the idea of authenticity to stretch to a persona that may be different to how someone really is face to face, offline (eg a pen name, stage name). And, I believe that accountability is the foundation for a thriving, constructive community.

The diagram below – while tongue in cheek – makes my point conveniently.

So, in the comments to my Ignite presentation about building communities, Julian Cole (AdSpace Pioneers) made an interesting point about Campaign Brief and a few other forums which allow participants to post anonymously. And I started thinking…

1. Not all activity that happens via social technology is social
Just because someone posts something on a message board or blog does not make that thing social. The best analogy that I could find – and this relates a little bit to some of the behaviour on Campaign brief – is this: a telephone, one would argue, is inherently social but if I phone someone, say my piece then hang up, I might be making a social point (or not!) but I’m not really using the telephone socially, to socialise. Or, if I walk down a street shouting through a megaphone to crowds of people… it all looks social, but my purpose is not ’social’ (yes, it may be one of ’social impact’ but not of ’social bonding’).

2. Not all social activity is validated in the sphere it takes place
Would love your thoughts on this but I believe that most social activity has a social goal. We want to be liked, respected, acknowledged. We want to learn, be inspired, be accepted. Having seen this sort of behaviour in music forums over the years, some anonymous, antagonistic behaviour within an online community may be to achieve a social goal in a separate online or offline community (“Look, what I did. I threw some stones over the wall.”). So anonymity in one forum (eg graffiti writers on trains) may actually be claimed behaviour in another forum (eg graffiti writer showing photos of his piece to friends at a party) – in other words, anonymity may be superficial.

This is starting to get way too theoretical but I wanted to throw these thoughts out there. Talk back!

If you enjoyed the read, please leave a comment. Feel free to follow me on Twitter

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon

Tagged as: Authenticity, Communities

  • I think often the best, and most effective, forms of social activity are naturally propelled into other spheres.

    Whether intended or not it demonstrates a high degree of power, influence or 'props'. If the activity is intended to transcend the sphere, it's a collective movement towards a common goal (for instance charity etc).

    I think you've highlighted very well that social media (and hence brands) are a vehicle for value, community and accomplishment.
  • Maybe a better first point is;

    1. Not all activity that happens via social technology is social BONDING

    Because the definition of social is an interaction of organisms. And walking down the street shouting is still social.

    I agreed with your point about community up until the last couple of weeks. When everything I thought I knew about online communities was thrown on its head with the 4chan /b/ community. And the Anonymous Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)

    I guess it would be time for a definition of Community as well, thanks Wikipedia 'community is a group of interacting organisms sharing an environment.'

    4chan /b/ would classify as a community because it has individuals posting in an environment which is the 4chan website.

    Anomaly? Maybe.

    But that doesn't matter because it is an example of a thriving community that suggest that anonymity is NOT the antithesis to community.
  • Ben
    Point 1 is very well made. Shouting at someone or not addressing their questions/concerns isn't really social regardless of whether you do it IRL or online.
  • OK ... and this is just my view ... but community is about belonging.

    As Mark's earlier post indicated, we do leave other traces regardless of our name/handle. So while, 4chan may be "anonymous", there are certain "voices" which are readily identifiable. And of course, "social" means different things to different people - shouting down a street is likely to be considered ANTI-social in some neighbourhoods ;)

    But bring it up another level. What is the currency of the exchange? What is the story that contributors tell on the site, in their head, and to others? I am not sure ... but I THINK that community is only created when there is an exchange of value between participants. What that value is, is defined by the context of the community. And a core part of the exchange is trust.

    Without that, without the abrasions that mark us out as individuals (whether words, names, turns of phrase or other markers), then we cannot have community. So I am still on the side of anonymity being the antithesis of community ;)
  • What about Alcoholics Anonymous?
  • Thabo
    In Alcoholics Anonymous, anonymity refers to telling people outside of the social groups. Internally identity matters, the meetings start with "My name is XXX and I am and alocoholic." It is expected of you to use your real first name.
    It is merely a closed community.

    Quote "We want to be liked, respected, acknowledged. We want to learn, be inspired, be accepted" . I disagree somewhat. We do not want this in all situations, primarily people want attention, here you refer to the positive aspects of attention. Some people do also enjoy the negative, disrupting those communities you disagree with, sometimes called anti-social, but really a different way of being social
  • Regardless of the channel it's all about the conversation in social media. Which is what you are touching on here. Posting comments anonymously is the least conversational, because it doesn't allow others to respond, even though it is web 2.0 its not really social. I have to agree with you that authenticity is integral in social media - at least to the ones looked at as "key influencers". I would find it very hard to believe/engage anyone that wasn't revealing themselves in some authentic way, which is why I have been blogging about the deceptive practices recently employed under the umbrella of "social media advertising". And that's why I don't let people follow me on Twitter who protect their updates - I personally like 2-way dialogue.
  • Michelle Zamora
    I tend to believe that a community is the sum of all conversations. Community members will include core members right through to anonymous voices. I do believe, enabling members to actively participate will increase the effectiveness and value of the community. And authenticity is the foundation to ensuring this happens - building trust and respect. However I also think that those anonymous comments and remarks can help to build conversation - generating discussion and debate. These people form part of the community DNA - healthy or otherwise........
  • Wow this is such a chunky topic that a few blog posts will struggle to define all the words and ideas that we're using so that we're all on the same page at the same time when discussing it.

    I'm keen to hear more thoughts, ideas, and will keep pondering the beast.

    Thank you all for your thoughts.
  • Wotcha -

    This is an interesting discussion, loving the dive into abstraction.

    I don't think social media are vehicles however, they're more like constructs. People rebuild themselves in the digital world and with that they achieve certain aims, unwittingly or not, whether that is a feeling of belonging, or making a connection for work purposes, or learning and increasing knowledge. It's not like for like, it's like for want/desire.

    So when it comes building a group, you want people to build themselves into the group as well. Anonymity doesn't really come into it. So anonymity isn't the antithesis of community at all. In a digital community, a person is represented as what they write/display, what they (re)present as themselves.

    Using different platforms people build different selves. Authenticity here then isn't necessarily being authentic to yourself but the expectations of the group.

    And with that, my sojourn down abstraction avenue is over :-)

    Ps. I tried to write this better in a post: http://geo-marketing.blogspot.com/2009/02/avata...
  • @Chris Dig the complex thinking. But... isn't a vehicle a construct? :) My point is a little different to what you're rebutting, I think. How can you 'build yourself into a group' if nobody knows you - persona, avatar, real-life or otherwise?
  • Yo Mark,

    This is wear I'll get myself in more of a tangle! :)

    A vehicle is a construct yeah but not in the same way. I think a vehicle implies a one way street, it takes you from A>B, with restrictions of course. These are incredibly complex now and offer the user to construct themselves in loadsa different ways, you'll need a persona/avatar but the difference between real-life and digital will be massive. People will build their avatars for wholly different reasons so it becomes a bit of an acting/self-fulfilling prophecy-type situation.

    It's not really about names/faces, it's what the person says and how they are judged by others and so judge themselves and alter what they say = who they are in the digital world. I think your point here on authenticity is key, you assume when you join a community people are there for similar reasons. But how can you ever know? Or with a research head, ever gain insights from profiles which may not even represent an actual person?

    Rant over. Sorry if this confuses more. I'm gonna do some more reading and get back to you! I like your blog, you talk about interesting stuff :)

    Ps. See Katie's points too - http://zebrabites.com/2009/01/29/manufactured-i...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: