I was recently invited to speak at Ottawa’s Social Media Breakfast. The organizers, Simon Chen, Rob Lane and Ryan Anderson, asked me specifically to bring a sociologist’s understanding to social media. Below is my presentation. For the full version, with the notes, visit the full slideshare version.

My essential argument for the presentation was that we don’t have enough deep understanding of “the social” in social media. Social media gurus abound these days, but too few of them actually understand social theory. Sociologists have been thinking about and researching social interactions for over a century. Just because we are now using the Web doesn’t mean those essential insights are no longer valid. Quite, the contrary, I argue. Social theory is even more relevant today because it coheres and synthesizes design and marketing research. We need social theory to provide some weight, some shape to what we learn about social media use.

As an aside, I notice “social business” is an emerging buzz word. All business is social. Those who argue “social business” is new are missing the point; we have only just begun to realize social interaction is fundamental to business, in part because we have begun to engage in empathetic research projects such as ethnography. When you do quantitative surveys, for example, it’s incredibly easy to dismiss the real impact of your business policies on your customers or employees. But when you hang out with your employees and hear candid feedback about how you’ve organized your business processes, it’s impossible to ignore the social impact (Undercover Boss is a great example of this phenomenon). “Social business,” then, is the effect of “taking on the role of the other” in your employee or customer research. It is not new.

But back to social media. I offer two social theories: social capital (Bourdieu) and dramaturgical theory (Goffman) to explain how we interact both on and off-line. Social networks are a source of wealth, says Bourdieu. Social interaction is a well-crafted play, says Goffman. I apply these theories to well executed, and not-so-well executed social media experiences.

Bourdieu understood our social networks to be a source of wealth. It’s what helps the rich get richer, he argued. Rich people know other people who can help them make more money or to keep the money they have. Sociologist Mark Granovetter found that in fact, it is the “weak ties” we have with our acquaintances that gets us jobs, for example. “Strong ties” with friends and family may enrich us spiritually but provide us fewer job opportunities.

Goffman had another framework for understanding social interaction: the theatre. Goffman believed social actors play roles when they interact. We have scripts, a wardrobe, a set, make-up, and a cast (or “team” as he called it). Embarrassment happens when the script slips. Imagine you must be both a manager, a father, a school buddy, and a cousin all at the same time. Embarrassing! This is what online social networks do to us everyday: they force us to play multiple roles at the same time. Good social media allows “audience segregation,” which lets us select which role to play when.

In the Q&A afterward, I mentioned a few pieces of social research that would help people understand social theory. The first is

McMillan, S. and M. Morrison (2006). “Coming of Age With The Internet: A Qualitative Exploration of How The Internet Has Become An Integral Part of Young People’s Lives.” New Media and Society 8(1): 73-95.

The second that is a wealth of information about social networking and online life:

Wellman, B. and C. Haythornwait, Eds. (2002). The Internet in Everyday Life. New York, Blackwell.

And finally, the original sources:

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of Theory And Research for The Sociology of Education. J. G. Richardson. New York, Greenwood: 248.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York, Pantheon Books.

We are facing a collective conundrum: how do we continue to consume enough to keep our economic engine rumbling, while at the same time, not consume too much to destroy that very economic engine? This is a contradiction explored by Marx and Polanyi, and now by sociologist George Ritzer, author of The McDonaldization of Society.

Ritzer has a guest post on Blackwell publishing’s “Compass” blog (wha…? academic publishers are blogging? That’s perhaps another post). He succinctly cuts to the heart of the problem:

[A] discussion of consumption in the U.S. cannot be divorced from issues relating to production, including the decline in the U.S. and the rise elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, in production. Further, we need to realize than an artificial distinction is being made between consumption and production.

For those of you who have read your Marx, you will recognize Ritzer’s train of thought. For those of you who have not, allow me to enlighten you to Marx’s best contribution to understanding the economy:

Production, then, is also immediately consumption, consumption is also immediately production…Production mediates consumption; it creates the latter’s material; iwthout it, consumption would lack an object (p. 91 of The Grundrisse)

Ritzer goes on to say that our consumption is both required and damaging at the same time. We consume “cheap goods” which are actually expensive in the long run. For example, cheap food costs us much more in the long run because of the diabetes and health problems cheap food causes.

We cannot, in short, get away from the underlying Marxian theory of value: all value is “congealed labour” embedded into commodities. We may try to create value without concern for the labour power required to make it, but you cannot get blood from a stone. There is a limit to how much “productivity” we can really create. We are human, after all.

Ritzer’s post is worth reading because it takes the wind out of the sails of our relentless optimism around economic growth. Economic growth itself is not an end; happiness and fulfillment are ends. We ought remember the limits and contradictions of economic production (and consumption).

Social media “gurus” abound these days. Which ones are worth listening to and which ones are bullshitters?

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt exposed bullshitters in his famous essay “On Bullshit.” The liar knows what the truth is and cares very much about concealing it. The bullshitter, on the other hand, doesn’t care what the truth is and has no compunction in stretching it.

The same goes for social media “gurus.” Those that care what about rigourous examination of the social may be wrong, but at least they take great pains to analyze the phenomenon. Those that don’t care about systematic, theoretically informed social inquiry are interested only in stretching or shaping their own agendas.

How can you tell the difference?

Here are a few signs you’re dealing with a social media bullshitter.

1. They skate over the tension between structure and agency: The tension between structure and agency is an age-old sociological debate. Social media bullshitters somehow miss this very important point. They often argue that implementing social media or social business design will somehow evaporate decades or even centuries of organizational structures. If your social media guru tells you that adding social media and stirring will create equality, harmony, and profits, begin to question them. If, on the other hand, they tell you that your organization does not live in a vacuum, and that your social media will be integrated in people’s existing lives with their existing economic, technological, and ethnically grounded experience, then they may be onto something.
2. They use the same social research methods every time: A classically trained sociologist is trained in both qualitative and quantitative methods. They are designers in the sense that they have expertise, which they draw upon selectively, according to the research question. Social media bullshitters, on the other hand, likely have a common stock of tools that they use repeatedly, regardless of the nuance of the research question. If their answer is always, “do a focus group,” or always, “do a survey,” then question them.
3. They see no paradoxes. Ever: Sociologists are constantly grappling with paradoxes. Weber’s famous paradoxical finding was that bureaucracies are both efficient and inefficient. They work wonders building and managing railroads, for example, but they result in horrible catastrophes like the Challenger disaster. Weber explained this paradox by arguing that rationality, or the rule of rules, is an “iron cage,” that keeps us safe but enslaved. If your social media guru claims there will be no paradox, nuance, or ambiguity, question them.
4. They don’t know what social capital really is: Social capital is not something one can measure in terms of bank balances. It was the creation of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (come to think of it, the bullshitters wouldn’t know that either). Social capital is something one develops by being in a particular social location. I may go to an exclusive boarding school. My social capital is my network of well-off friends. Social capital is a particularly important concept when thinking about social media. Bourdieu noted that those in lower economic classes explicitly reject items they consider “above their station.” This means that luxury or “top of the line” is not always your best approach.

The bottom line is this: social media bullshitters have no knowledge of social theory or methodology. Trust a person who provides no easy answer, who carefully selects their research method, and who understands complex concepts.

Do you have more signs of being a social media bullshitter? Please share them here!

New research finds that there are seven key factors that promote social capital. In his book, Unanticipated Gains, Mario Luis Small did an ethnography of New York daycare centres. What he finds may surprise you: daycare centres are great “brokers” for social capital. I describe his findings on the Social Capital Value Add blog:

Small argues that actors get involved in networks in particular ways that are structured by the organizations themselves. What are the effects of organizational involvement on social capital? And how can organizations nurture the development of social capital?

Read the entire post.

Recently the blogosphere blew up over a post by Danah Boyd about classes on MySpace versus Facebook. Boyd contended that each site appealed to differing economic classes. Facebook has a “cleaner” look, some people argued, making it “higher class.” What does that even mean? Well designers, here’s what you need to know about class.

In his famous book Distinction, French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued that one’s “taste” was not just something one simply “has.” No, Bourdieu said, “taste” is a function of your economic class, and higher classes pursue “distinction.” He surveyed many thousands of French people and found that from fashion to food, people strove to distinguish themselves economically through their use of symbolic objects.

Bourdieu points out that merely expensive things are not “distinguished.” One can be adorned with many expensive items but not have one iota of distinction. Imagine the young woman who wears several designer objects at once. Or the middle-aged man who wears diamonds and gold because he thinks it’s “classy.” Such goods are indeed expensive but they do not connote higher class. Bourdieu noted that this paradox is related to the rich’s desire to maintain its preeminent social position. The “nouveau riches” will never have “what we have.”

Designers of all media tend to unconsciously understand this concept. Perhaps the designers of Facebook designed its clean Web 2.0 look to contrast with the “down market” or “ghetto” look of MySpace, with its garish colors and poor user experience.

When designing a new object, keep in mind the following:

• Understand the class position of your target user. Imagine what clothes this person would buy and wear. Imagine their closet, their garage. What kinds of goods does this person use to adorn herself? Ensure your design object matches that type of good.
• High-class objects embody such values as “refinement,” “subtlety,” and “understatement.” Clean objects with streamlined looks and no obvious connection to price are implicitly higher class. Those with refinement (but maybe not money) will be attracted to them.
• Don’t design higher-class objects in the hopes of creating a “better” object. Higher class objects are off-putting to middle and lower class people. In the words of Bourdieu, lower-class people “refuse what they were refused.” Lower-class people do indeed have money to spend, and good design serves the needs of people. If you improperly privilege the “refined” over mass appeal, you will unwittingly reduce your number of potential users.
• Exclusivity is the elixir of the elite. Designing luxury items necessarily entails limited editions, smaller product runs, fewer accessories or add-on products. The secret to creating truly successful luxury items is committing to the unique. This may not be very profitable (even if you do charge an “exclusivity premium”). But after an exclusive product is created, it can be “copied” for mass production. The “original” will never lose its distinction, especially if it has a clear imprimatur.
• Read the best Dr. Seuss story of all time: The Star-Bellied Sneetches Who Lived On The Beaches. It will tell you everything you ever needed to know about class and design.