The Infolythic
Era
Interactive capability, ease, and
sociability are only a few elements that make the social networking sites
cultural magnets for group behavior.
They
may not be the most ‘talked about’ among us or in the news, unless on those
occasions when their stock value crosses every sane limit, or one of their CEOs
purchase another giant company. Social networking sites invaded twenty first
century culture quietly, but with a persistent stamp. Indelible is their
influence upon us, and in their silent presence in our daily affairs, we often
realize the intelligibility of their voice.
 |
| Image Courtesy: Google |
I think
the mass affection towards Facebook, Twitter, or blogs is not, just because
these media can help one express their ideas into any demographic, without
being bodily vulnerable, being present at the physical location, but also due
to the fact that these sites offer important levels of self-gratifying intractability.
In other words, it is not about talking or befriending with the ‘Other’ that we
chase Facebook or Twitter posts, but the satisfaction to see ourselves,
admired, considered worth of our unique space, social status, etc.
Complementary
to this notion is a recent hike in the number of ‘Share/like exchange’ groups in
Facebook and ‘retweet’ groups in Twitter.
It
reminds me of how ancient people swarmed around a campfire, in front of a cave,
to listen to each other, to tell stories, or just to surrender to the great
storyteller. Think about those exclamatory shouts and claps they might give to
a truly shaking story. In Facebook and twitter, we find similar behaviors in
‘like’ buttons or ‘retweeted’ posts.
 |
| Image Courtesy: Google |
Increase
in the number of Facebook groups that stand for an explicit exchange of mutual
consent, [‘Share/like exchange’] meaning, you like my post, I like yours in
return, apparently indicates two cultural transformations. One—we are being
excessively wound up towards garnering public consent on individual affairs. Although
this behavior might not create any direct physiological impact,
psychologically, this may alter the individual’s perspectives about the society
and herself. Two—social networking has underscored wild preference for ‘group
structure’. The basic principle of social networking sites is to lubricate
networking in the cyber world. However, groups based on political bend,
preferences, schools, colleges, universities, and in the names of social
causes, generate a different levels of social contact.
When
groups are formed with preferences such as ideology, name of your favorite
writer, caste or books, etc., one is fixing a certain level of communication
among the members of the same group, forming unique phrases, words, and team
activities based on the preference of each group. I am reminded of the Stone
Age people, forming groups in order to execute a more effective food hunting
strategy.
 |
| Image Courtesy: Google |
Hunting
and gathering of food in the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods have given way
to the harvesting of public consent, through ‘shares and likes’ and ‘retweets’
in the Infolythic Era. Harmony or disharmony, it is a coterie. That makes all
the difference, like one poet once said.
