Twitter has become the ultimate (or at least current favorite) tool for addressing the fundamental human need to matter, to have a witness. The increasingly popular web service "for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of
quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?" is, more than any tool before it, providing a platform through which we can all bear [and bare] witness to – or follow, in Twitter parlance – others, and others can bear witness to us. And the ability to project our witnesses and witnessees (or followers and followees) into a public sphere – the Twitterverse – adds interesting new dimensions to the satisfaction of this primal need to matter.
Naomi Pollack recently wrote a great Biznik article on Understanding Twitter: Why Twitter is Less Like Facebook and More Like Email
that generated more comments – 118, last time I checked – than any
other article I've seen on the Biznik site (I'm not sure how many
tweets it has generated). A few of those comments were mine, including one long one connecting Twittering and witnessing that prompted me to take the topic offline – or at least migrate it over to my "home" soapbox, this blog.
The comment centered on my favorite quote from the movie Shall We Dance [I just noticed the subtitle: "A new comedy about following your own lead"], uttered by the character Beverly Clark (played by Susan Sarandon):
We need a witness to our lives. There's a billion people on the
planet… I mean, what does any one life really mean? But in a
marriage, you're promising to care about everything. The good things,
the bad things, the terrible things, the mundane things… all of it,
all of the time, every day. You're saying 'Your life will not go
unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go un-witnessed
because I will be your witness'."
Although the quote is referring to marriage, I think the general human need to be noticed, to be witnessed, to matter, is behind much of the popularity in all social media, and is captured – or projected – most acutely in Twitter. I don't mean to equate the Twitter follower / followee relationship with marriage – indeed, with most Twitter users having multiple followers and/or followees, this would be akin to an extreme case of polygamy – but I do believe that this quote captures the spirit of the ambient intimacy afforded by Twitter (and intended by its designers).
T.S. Eliot, sums this up in a quote that is short enough to fit in a Twitter post (or "tweet"):
Of course, any medium that becomes sufficiently popular will have some who take it to the extreme; online social media just makes the pool of potential extremists much larger. Ashton Kutcher's recent "achievement" of gaming gaining over 1 million followers on Twitter is a noteworthy example. At first, I thought this was another example of someone becoming Internet famous (a la Julia Allison, an online[-only] variation of what I might call vacuous celebutantism – being famous for being famous – perhaps best represented by Paris Hilton). I had never heard of before – I don't follow him in social media or more traditional media – but in reading some of the reports about the 1 million Twitter follower milestone, I discovered he already enjoyed some measure of celebrity before this stunt. All the same, it strikes me as much ado about nothing.
I don't know what it means to be ambiently intimate with over a million people. In a quick perusal of Ashton Kutcher's tweetstream, I see that he discusses Paula Abdul, going trap shooting, going to dinner, riding horses drunk and forgetting things when he leaves the house … nothing particularly remarkable (or retweetable) … with the possible exception of this, somewhat ironic, tweet:
“Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.” -unknown
I'm reminded of the million dollar homepage, created by an enterprising 21-year-old college student (purportedly to help pay for his education), on which people could purchase any number of its 1 million pixels for $1 each. It was an interesting idea, and the million pixels were all sold, but I don't know how the money was actually used … or how anyone else benefited from this achievement. I'm also reminded of Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia stunt, in which
he urged his viewers [/ witnesses / followers?] to edit the Wikipedia
entry to say that the population of elephants had tripled in the last 6
months. Of course, Stephen Colbert also engages his followers in many, more positive – or at least more benign (and definitely more amusing) – ways, e.g., offering his perspective on the "912 project" initiated by Glenn Beck of Fox News (what I would call a fear projection program … and network), and urging his followers to join with him on his own "scare and balanced" 10.31 project. I wonder what great ideas Ashton Kutcher will rally his followers around.
A recent article by Simon Dumenco in Advertising Age about The Real Meaning of Ashton Kutcher's 1M Twitter Followers offers further insights into the Ashton Kutcher, Twitter, and media in general:
My point? Just that the utopian rhetoric of social-networking aside,
the lesson of media history is that, regardless of the rise and fall of
media conglomerates, media is almost always about The Few profiting at
the expense of The Many's attention. To put that another way, The Many
are actually investing their mind share — their currency in the
Attention Economy — in a way that leads, for the most part, to the
enrichment of The Few. To put it rather cynically, a certain portion of
The Many are getting ripped off — deprived of more and more of their
mind share for little or no gain (or possibly a big loss).
There's a parallel, of course, to the housing bubble. At some point it
suddenly dawns on millions of people that they've paid way too much for
way too little actual value. (If you're one of the people who has read
every one of Mr. Kutcher's more than 1,400 Twitter updates … well,
just realize that you'll never, ever get that time back.)
However, I do think there is some good to be found in social media … although I think it is telling that I often discover the good in social media via more traditional media. Shortly after encountering Naomi's article on Twitter, I listened to an episode of NPR's series This I Believe, entitled Dancing to Connect to a Global Tribe, in which Matt Harding, who has become famous for his videos of dancing "terribly" in exotic locations, (with 41K subscribers to his YouTube channel, and over 13M views of his compilation video, Where the Hell is Matt?).
In stating his belief(s), Matt reported on what he has learned from his travels (and dances):
seen, and they're curious to hear and see others from places far away.
Interestingly (or, perhaps, curiously), another famous person from Seattle, Robert Fulghum, author of a number of essays and books exploring personal beliefs, most notably including All I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, also talked about dancing, witnessing and sitting on the sidelines his This I Believe essay, entitled Dancing All the Dances As Long as I Can:
I believe in dancing. …
The first time I went tango dancing I was too intimidated to get out on
the floor. I remembered another time I had stayed on the sidelines,
when the dancing began after a village wedding on the Greek island of
Crete. The fancy footwork confused me. “Don’t make a fool of yourself,”
I thought. “Just watch.”
Reading my mind, an older woman dropped out of the dance, sat down
beside me, and said, “If you join the dancing, you will feel foolish.
If you do not, you will also feel foolish. So, why not dance?”
And, she said she had a secret for me. She whispered, “If you do not
dance, we will know you are a fool. But if you dance, we will think
well of you for trying.”
I was listening to NPR's Fresh Air this week, where Terry Gross was interviewing Gabriel Byrne who plays a psychoanalyst on the HBO series In Treatment, about the art of listening. Terry suggests that his character, Dr. Paul Weston, has "heroicized the act of listening". Byrne has some interesting insights to share on listening (a form of witnessing … and, as noted in the StoryCorps series broadcast on NPR, an act of love):
We have a real need now, in these times, to be listened to. And I think when people identify with these characters, or reject them, they feel connected in a way that sometimes they don't in these fractured communities that we live in. … Listening is one of the most profound compliments you can pay to another person – to truly listen – and to feel that you're heard is deeply fulfilling in a deep human way. … Really, truly, profoundly listening is to be unaware of your self at a deep level.
I don't think anyone would accuse a Twitter user – especially one with an unnaturally large number of followers – as being "unaware of your self at a deep level" … at least not in the context of posting a tweet (although another recent NPR story, Your Brain on Twitter, reported on a brain-computer interface that may eventually allow people to directly post tweets based on neural activity). In fact, I suspect deep listening – or deep thinking, reading or writing … or depth of any kind – is the antithesis of the ambient intimacy promoted by Twitter.
I suspect that's what bothers me the most about Twitter and other manifestations of snack culture – the embrace and celebration of shallowness. I recognize that there as many uses
of Twitter as there are users, and that it really does represent a social media
platform for the masses … unlike blogs. One of the reasons I think there are so many "dead blogs" is that so
few people are willing – or able – to take the time to write in much
depth … and, as Nicholas Carr pointed out in his great Atlantic Monthly article on "Is Google Making Us Stupid?",
"the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle"
for him, and a growing proportion of other "readers". But, hey, anyone
can write – or read – a 140-character tweet!
In the interest of full disclosure [on this topic], I will note, in closing, that I am a Twitter user (@gumption). I was an early adopter of Twitter, and wrote about it in the context of attention, inattention, appreciation and depreciation at Foo Camp 2007. However, I soon grew weary of reading about what my ambient intimates were wearing, eating or thinking. It's not that I didn't care about the people I was following – in fact, I deeply cared (and still care) for some of them – I just didn't (and don't) care all that much about their activities of daily living. I stopped using Twitter entirely for about a year, but re-engaged with the tool during the closing months of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, when I was obsessed with staying on top of the latest developments in the most exciting political contest of my adult life. During the campaign, I wrote a few politically-oriented blog posts, but given my penchant for depth (or, at least, length) in posting blog entries, I wanted another platform for processing my thoughts, feelings and judgments about some of the actions taken by the candidates and their supporters … a platform that I could use for shorter, more frequent venting. Twitter was just the ticket. I also started following some newly found (and appreciated) sources for news, such as NPR Politics, The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo and Think Progress.
Since the end of the election, I've shifted my use of Twitter to [mostly] posting inspiring quotes that I encounter in my reading and listening (very few of which, I might add, are retweets, i.e., Twitter is not currently a major source of inspiration). I've added a Twitter widget to my blog (in the right column), and my primary motivation in using Twitter is to have the 5 most inspiring quotes I've encountered (interspersed with occasional short rants) appear on my blog. This helps compensate for the depressingly decreasing frequency of new blog entries. I've been surprised to learn that several people have recently begun following me (or, more properly, my tweets). I hope they are not offended by my lack of reciprocity: it's nothing personal, I just generally don't like following people on Twitter (for reasons noted above). In addition to not following people, I hardly ever check for replies (tweets with "@gumption").
Although many people seem to see and/or use Twitter as a platform for conversation, for me it's primarily a soapbox, a broadcasting narrowcasting platform. I prefer in-depth conversations … like the kind I enjoy through the comments on this blog. In an earlier post, commenting on commenting, I noted that my blog posts and the comments people post on them represent projections of sorts (and, in so doing, I suspect I may have discouraged some comments – and commenters – that I very much enjoy). In a subsequent post, commenting on validation / validating comments, I admitted that "I really do appreciate (and feel validated by) comments from people who are in some way moved by what I write". In a way, those comments represent a public witnessing to what I've written (and my comments responding to others' comments represent a witnessing to what they've written).
So, it's not that I'm against witnessing or even the projection of witnessing … it's just that I believe in depth and meaning … and, frankly, I just don't find – or project – much of that on Twitter.
[Update, 11 May 2009: Prompted by Praveen's comment, I finally re-found a blog entry that danah boyd had posted a while back (December 2007) about valuing inefficiencies and unreliability that effectively elucidates my concern about depth in Twitter. It is the very ease with which anyone can post a tweet that diminishes the meaning of the medium.
The more efficient a means of communication is, the less it is valued. … Social technologies that make things more efficient reduce the cost of
action. Yet, that cost is often an important signal. We want
communication to cost something because that cost signals that we value
the other person, that we value them enough to spare our time and
attention. Cost does not have to be about money. One of the things that
I've found to be consistently true with teens of rich and powerful
parents is that they'd give up many of the material goods in their
world to actually get some time and attention from their overly
scheduled parents. Time and attention are rare commodities in modern
life. Spending time with someone is a valuable signal that you care.
FWIW, danah is on Twitter (@zephoria).]
[Update, 15-May-2009: Tyler (@phillipi) sent me a link to some interesting video commentaries on the Twitter phenomenon: the Twouble with Twitters and Celebrity Twitter Overkill, embedded below.]
Comments
11 responses to “Twitter: a witness projection program”
Posts of this kind beg for a deeper exchange. It’s something I’ve also felt growing, the nagging sense that social media, especially Twitter, encourages us to be socially shallow, although to say that out loud sounds snobbish and patronizing. I was a little offended by an excerpt from Andrew Keen’s new work, The Cult of the Amateur, for exactly the same reason — but I was on the other side there, taking it personally that I am one of those “amateurs” as a blogger that he is talking about. Where Twitter fits in for me is simply be able to quickly telegraph to others something they might also find interesting, including my own blog posts, which, I think like you, Joe, continues to be home base. In a couple of cases, Twitter has even led to more in depth connections. Moving from Twitter, to blog comments to personal email — well, the email has felt very intimate by comparison. A strange thought!
In the end, I really don’t think the explosion of social media will do much harm and could do some really good things, especially if it leads to real, not “ambient intimacy” as defined here. What I think we all know from experience is that initial conversation in no matter what context (except the odd stranger in a bar)tends to be shallow. We sift through a ton of possible connections and then choose to go deeper with a few. There isn’t anything that stops anyone from making deeper connections via the net. When my father died earlier this year, a fellow blogger sent me a kind email saying, “Listen, if you want to talk, let me know,” meaning “talk on the phone.” It was a kind gesture and only involves the same old thing that disconnects people — which is the risk of any interaction — the fear of rejection. Maybe a tool such as Twitter reduces that fear, and maybe in reducing that fear it helps some people ultimately overcome it or at least take more risks. Other tools move it that direction in different ways: online Communities of Practice, for example, or for that matter, eHarmony (I’m living proof). But I’m guessing that social media in general really hasn’t helped us overcome such anxieties in any unique way. They may, in fact, simply gloss over them, leaving a version of connection more than the deeper stuff. After all, it is still up to us as individuals to make the move toward genuine openness, toward friendship, toward any kind of meaningful “I-Thou” exchange. I’m not sure social media have conquered that one on our behalf at all — at least not so far.
What I hear as the concern is that tools such as Twitter work somehow to replace intimacy and our desire for the real thing with simply an impression of it. The fact that a celebrity has a million point five follows says “fantasy” all over it. Not too different from buying magazines at the supermarket. So will that make people different and change the culture or does it just reveal the culture that is. I’d say, “the culture that is,” in which case I have a different question — that relates to what I’ve said above — which is how can social media facilitate the deepest levels of human connectedness? Or is that too much to ask from mere technology?
@danoestreich: thank you for answering the call for a deeper exchange! I have not read Andrew Keen’s book, but from your brief description, it sounds like the antithesis of a Aldous Huxley quote I recently heard – and was inspired by (and wrote about, in my post on the past, present and future of green) – at a Lawrence Lessig talk, regarding the pitfalls of [over-]professionalization:
“In the days before machinery men and women who wanted to amuse themselves were compelled, in their humble way, to be artists. Now they sit still and permit professionals to entertain them by the aid of machinery. It is difficult to believe that general artistic culture can flourish in this atmosphere of passivity.”
I suspect that the use of social media reflects the same kinds of trends we’ve seen in other technological advancements, e.g., the over-use of different fonts and colors when word processing became available, and the over-use of animations in Powerpoint. Both of these tools have helped “amateurs” better express themselves – though there are still those who abuse / mis-use some of their features – and I think they have ultimately made the world a better place. Your comment helps me adopt a more positive outlook on the prospects for other widely adopted social media tools (like Twitter).
I’m glad to read of your deep[er] connections through Twitter. I have yet to form any deep connections through the Twitterverse (or, as a commenter on Simon Dumenco’s article put it, the “statusphere”), though I have forged some very deep connections (e.g., to you) through the blogosphere. Your experience may help me open up to more experimentation through this new[er] platform.
Your question about changing the culture vs. revealing the culture that is reminds of of an inspiring quote someone recently shared with me – and which I shared on Twitter – by Berthold Brecht:
“Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.”
I don’t equate Twitter with art (or [most] tweets with art), but my fondest hope for Twitter – and social media, in general – is that it does evolve into a hammer with which to shape our culture. Whether and how it can help facilitate [deeper] human connectedness remains to be seen … and shaped.
In my very unqualified opinion, you guys just overthink this stuff. If people need to fill some void in their lives by Tweeting all the time, then let them Tweet away, unexamined by such serious thinkers/bloggers as yourselves. Don’t we all have something better to do?
Ah, touché! I’m reminded of a Bertrand Russell quote: “Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time” (I wonder if Russell would be a Twitter user if he were alive today).
In The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler offers up the promise of a networked information society in which we might see the emergence of a new folk culture that is “more critical, … self-reflective and participatory” … and while participation is increasing, I keep hoping we’ll see more of the critical and self-reflective aspects emerge. Benkler talks about the qualitative change brought about by the prospect of becoming a [potential] speaker (e.g., someone who can produce content on the web), and how it changes the way we listen to what we hear … and, by corollary, the way we read what we write. I’m not sure we’re seeing a change in a positive direction, nor whether “the practice of producing culture makes us all more sophisticated readers, viewers and listeners, as well as more engaged makers” [thus far].
I could go on and on about Benkler and The Wealth of Networks (a signal that another blog post may be in order), but I’ll end [this thread] with a passage that Benkler quotes from Eben Moglen’s article on Anarchism Triumphant, in which the explanation of Moglen’s Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday’s Law includes this relevant observation: “It’s an emergent property of connected human minds that they create things for one another’s pleasure and to conquer their uneasy sense of being too alone.”
Returning to the issue of wasting time and filling voids, I’m reminded of some reflections on Living Without a Goal: Mattering Without Being Useful, in which I’d recounted a passage that disturbed me: “when you try to identify the use of your entire life, you are asking to be used.” I admit that I’m addicted to usefulness … and filling voids.
Finally, I’m also reminded of a Socrates quote, “The unexamined life is not worth living”, and I suppose I have been adopting / promoting a corollary: “The unexamined thought is not worth posting”. I’ll [over]think this line of thought further before posting more …
Joe, thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.
Amy, thanks for showing up here. But…why don’t you tell us what you really think? ( ;>)
Both of you, have a nice day.
For the majority, twitter is about killing time and gaining pleasure in doing so. It’s an age old syndrome. It’s a new age means and medium. But on the positive side, it’s also the easiest means of directly connecting to the whole world, every 6.5+ billion of us for free, where else can you do that?
Praveen: nice to read from you!
I agree with your assessment of Twitter being a new means to accomplish old, well-established ends. However, the ease with which one can “connect” is part of the problem. I’ve long believed that any sufficiently large signal is indistinguishable from noise (riffing on Stanley Clarke), and given that individual tweets are relatively small, I would now add a corollary that any sufficiently large number of signals is indistinguishable from noise.
As for your observations about the “6.5+ billion” users and “free”, Simon Dumenco had some [more] interesting observations about The Coming End of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook Socialism, with the subtitle “Thank God for Tech Moguls Who Redistribute VC Wealth So We Can Cybersocialize Freely. For Now, That Is”. The article was prompted by Cardinal Sean Brody’s invitation to [an estimated one billion] Catholics to use Twitter as a prayer platform, and went on to note “you’ve got to admit that at some level the boys at Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are actively choosing to redistribute the wealth. They’re taking money from venture capitalists and deploying it so that millions of people far beyond Silicon Valley can get something for nothing”. So Twitter is easy, widely available and free … but it’s not clear how much longer that last feature will be part of the mix.
A quick followup: Praveen’s comment prompted to me to dig through the archives of danah boyd’s blog to re-find a post she’d made on valuing inefficiencies and unreliability, that addresses the issue I have with the ease and availability of Twitter. I amended my original blog post with an update including a relevant quote from danah’s post.
The Dark Side of Digital Backchannels in Shared Physical Spaces
Recently, I’ve been disturbed to read about some significant frontchannel disturbances arising through the use of Twitter backchannels to heckle speakers at conferences. Having finished off my last blog with an example of the beneficial ways that Twitt…
The Commoditization of Twitter Followers
I have a love/hate relationship with Twitter. I see – and have increasingly experienced – many benefits to its use, especially with respect to its propensity to foster meaningful new connections with consequential strangers and acquaintances. However, …
Very well said! People are using it in their own preference. Some to twit, to promote or some to just listen to what’s up. It’s a really great network.